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.24-18119 (E) 181224 030125
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 100th session, 26–30 August 2024
Opinion No. 29/2024 concerning Mohamed Riahi (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 6 June 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Algeria a communication concerning Mohamed Riahi. The
Government replied to the communication on 11 July 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).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
General Assembly
Distr.: General
15 October 2024
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
2
GE.24-18119
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mohamed Riahi is a national of Algeria born on 1 November 1984. Prior to his arrest,
he was employed as a machine operator. He usually resides in Aïn Témouchent, Algeria.
5.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi is a peaceful activist who campaigns for
democracy in Algeria and who has participated in every peaceful pro-democracy
demonstration of the Hirak movement since 22 February 2019. The source notes that the
movement has been repressed since 2020.
6.
Mr. Riahi was arrested for the first time in September 2020 and sentenced to 1 year in
prison for posting a text on social media networks criticizing government policies. He was
released in April 2021 by presidential pardon on the occasion of the advent of the month of
Ramadan.
(i)
Arrest and detention
7.
According to the source, on 19 November 2022, at around 6 p.m., officers of the
Directorate General of Internal Security of the city of Oran arrested Mr. Riahi near the factory
where he worked. He was neither shown an arrest warrant nor informed of the reasons for
his arrest. He was immediately taken to his home, where officers conducted a search. The
source notes that a search warrant issued by a judicial authority was not presented. The
officers also searched the home of members of Mr. Riahi’s family. Three telephones, a sum
of 2,440 Algerian dinars and the keys to Mr. Riahi’s apartment were seized.
8.
Once the search had been completed, the officers took Mr. Riahi to an unknown
location. This location was not divulged to either Mr. Riahi or his family, despite the family’s
requests to the Aïn Témouchent police in this regard. Mr. Riahi was not allowed to contact a
lawyer and was not informed of his right to remain silent and to challenge the lawfulness of
his detention before a judicial authority. He was deprived of contact with his family until
23 November 2022. A member of his family was allowed to visit him the following day, for
15 minutes, under the supervision of three officers.
9.
The source explains that for 11 days following his arrest, Mr. Riahi was detained on
the premises of the General Directorate of Internal Security. There, he was interrogated
without legal assistance from a lawyer of his choosing or a court-appointed lawyer. Mr. Riahi
was tortured and forced to incriminate himself and sign confessions. The source indicates
that during Mr. Riahi’s interrogation, he was handcuffed while officers of the Directorate
General of Internal Security beat him with sticks and a leather belt on several parts of his
body. He received blows to the ribcage that fractured a rib. The officers also struck Mr. Riahi
in the face, breaking his right canine tooth. For several nights, Mr. Riahi was left in a dirty
cell, without clothes, a mattress or a blanket, and forced to sleep on the floor despite the cold
at that time of year.
10.
During one interrogation session, the officers immobilized Mr. Riahi on his back, with
his head tilted downwards, and covered his head with a towel before pouring water over his
nose and mouth, causing him to suffocate and vomit and causing pain in his lungs. At the end
of this interrogation session, Mr. Riahi noticed 10 plastic five-litre bottles of water in the
room.
11.
Mr. Riahi did not undergo a medical examination and had no access to any medical
assistance before or during these interrogation sessions. According to the source, because of
the handcuffs, both Mr. Riahi’s wrists showed signs of tearing and red and blue marks.
Mr. Riahi also had bruises on his neck, back and stomach from the torture to which he claims
to have been subjected.
12.
On 29 November 2022, at the end of his time in police custody, Mr. Riahi was brought
before the public prosecutor, who verbally notified him of the charges against him: the
offence of insulting an on-duty law enforcement officer, as defined in article 144 of the
Criminal Code; the offence of insulting the President of the Republic by electronic means, as
defined in article 144 bis of the Criminal Code; the crime of migrant smuggling as part of an
organized criminal group, as defined in article 303 bis 32 of the Criminal Code; and the
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
3
offence of publicly distributing, for propaganda purposes, leaflets likely to harm the national
interest, as defined in article 96 of the Criminal Code.
13.
During his interview with the public prosecutor, Mr. Riahi complained that he had
been tortured by officers of the General Directorate of Internal Security while in their custody.
He showed physical signs of torture, but the prosecutor failed to take any of the necessary
legal steps, such as ordering an investigation or having him examined by a forensic doctor to
verify the signs of torture and possibly provide treatment, in accordance with the Manual on
the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
14.
On the same day, Mr. Riahi was brought before the investigating judge of the first
investigating division of Aïn Témouchent Court for the first time, pursuant to a request by
the prosecutor that a judicial investigation be opened and that Mr. Riahi be placed in pretrial
detention.
15.
The investigating judge interviewed Mr. Riahi without a lawyer present and ordered
that he be held in pretrial detention. Mr. Riahi was incarcerated in Aïn Témouchent Prison,
a penitentiary facility under the control of the Ministry of Justice. According to the source, it
was not until 29 November 2022 that Mr. Riahi was able to contact a lawyer.
16.
On 1 December 2022, Mr. Riahi lodged an appeal against the detention order with the
indictment division of Aïn Témouchent Court of Appeal. The Court rejected this appeal and
upheld the pretrial detention order.
17.
On 4 December 2022, Mr. Riahi lodged a complaint with the clerk of Aïn Témouchent
Prison, reporting to the public prosecutor the acts of torture to which he had been subjected
during his detention by the General Directorate of Internal Security.
18.
On 11 February 2024, Mr. Riahi was brought before the criminal court of first instance
of Aïn Témouchent to stand trial on the charges brought against him by the indictment
division pursuant to a referral order dated 4 December 2023. The indictment division of Aïn
Témouchent Court of Appeal dropped several charges, retaining only the offence of publicly
distributing, for propaganda purposes, leaflets likely to harm the national interest and the
crime of migrant smuggling as part of an organized criminal group.
19.
According to the source, during his public trial before the criminal court, Mr. Riahi
told the judge about the acts of torture to which he had been subjected. His defence counsel
criticized the prosecutor for taking no action in response to Mr. Riahi’s complaint. During
the trial, and after prompting by the judge, the prosecutor acknowledged in court that
Mr. Riahi had filed a complaint of torture over 15 months prior but did not explain the reasons
for his inaction. The source emphasizes that the authorities have acted with impunity, leading
to a denial of justice.
20.
During the closing arguments, the defence counsel reiterated the fact that Mr. Riahi
had been subjected to acts of torture, criticized the inaction of the prosecutor in that regard
and requested that Mr. Riahi’s statements, which had been obtained by means of torture, be
declared inadmissible. However, the court of first instance did not respond to this request and,
after a trial that lasted only a few hours, sentenced Mr. Riahi to 18 months in prison and
ordered him to pay a fine of 50,000 dinars for the offence of publicly distributing, for
propaganda purposes, leaflets likely to harm the national interest, pursuant to article 96 of
the Criminal Code. Mr. Riahi was acquitted of the crime of migrant smuggling as part of an
organized criminal group.
21.
Mr. Riahi appealed the decision of the court of first instance before Aïn Témouchent
Criminal Court of Appeal. At the appeal hearing on 27 March 2024, Mr. Riahi again reported
the acts of torture to which he had been subjected and the failure of the public prosecutor to
act on his complaint. In addition, the defence asked the appeal judge to declare Mr. Riahi’s
statements inadmissible, since they had been obtained by means of torture. According to the
source, the appeal court did not respond to this request.
22.
The public prosecutor of Aïn Témouchent Court of Appeal lodged an appeal in
cassation against the appeal ruling. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this appeal.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
4
GE.24-18119
23.
Mr. Riahi is currently being held in Aïn Témouchent Prison, where his family is
allowed to visit him every fortnight for 30 minutes.
(ii)
Legal analysis
24.
The source claims that the detention of Mr. Riahi is arbitrary under categories I, II, III
and V.
a.
Category I
25.
The source reiterates that a detention is arbitrary under category I when it is clearly
impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty. It notes that for a
deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, the authorities must invoke this legal basis, which
is typically done through an arrest warrant or order. In addition, article 9 (2) of the Covenant
provides that anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of his or her arrest, of the
reasons for the arrest.2
26.
In the present case, the source claims that Mr. Riahi was arrested by officers of the
General Directorate of Internal Security without being presented with an arrest warrant or
other document issued by a judicial authority and without being informed of the reasons for
his arrest, in violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.
27.
In addition, the source claims that Mr. Riahi was held incommunicado, insofar as he
was prevented from contacting his family for the first few days of his detention and was
deprived of the possibility of obtaining the assistance of a lawyer of his choosing or a
court-appointed lawyer throughout his detention on the premises of the Directorate General
of Internal Security.
28.
According to the source, having been deprived of his right to a lawyer, Mr. Riahi was
also unable to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a judicial authority, in
violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
29.
The source adds that Mr. Riahi was not brought before a judge until 29 November
2022, almost 11 days after he had been taken into custody on 19 November 2022, without
any legitimate justification for this delay and in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
b.
Category II
30.
The source reiterates that a detention is arbitrary under category II when it results from
the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms protected under international law, including
the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association.3 In the present case, the source
argues that Mr. Riahi was arrested, detained, prosecuted and convicted for peacefully
campaigning for the establishment of a pluralist and democratic political system.
31.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi was prosecuted for expressing peaceful political
opinions that were critical of government policies on social media networks and for actively
participating in peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations calling for the rule of law. The
source adds that Mr. Riahi was prosecuted under provisions of the Criminal Code that punish
the exercise of rights recognized by both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
Covenant, notably the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,
protected by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19,
21 and 22 of the Covenant. Mr. Riahi was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined
50,000 dinars for the offence of publicly distributing, for propaganda purposes, leaflets likely
to harm the national interest, under article 96 of the Code, and acquitted of the crime of
migrant smuggling as part of an organized criminal group. According to the source,
Mr. Riahi’s conviction is based on his publication of writings expressing his opinions, which
are of critical of government policies, and the sharing of videos featuring Algerian individuals,
based abroad, exposing certain government practices. According to the source, these writings
and videos, published or shared by Mr. Riahi on his personal account on a social media
network and other Internet platforms, constitute the peaceful expression by Mr. Riahi of his
2 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64.
3 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8 (b).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
5
political opinions and in no way incite violence or racial or religious hatred. Accordingly, the
source argues that Mr. Riahi’s deprivation of liberty constitutes an infringement of his right
to freedom of expression, protected by article 19 of the Covenant.
32.
In addition, the source asserts that article 96 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of
which Mr. Riahi was prosecuted and convicted, was promulgated and is formulated in a
vague, general and imprecise manner, contrary to the principle of the legality of punishment
and in violation of article 15 (1) of the Covenant. In this regard, the source refers to a
communication from several special procedures mandate holders,4 and to the concluding
observations of the Human Rights Committee on the fourth periodic report of Algeria.5
c.
Category III
33.
The source reiterates that due process is one of the fundamental aspects of the right to
a fair trial and that the minimum international standards in this regard are established in the
Covenant, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules). According to the source, the authorities have committed numerous
violations of Mr. Riahi’s rights under those standards.
34.
The source claims that Mr. Riahi did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer of his
choosing or a court-appointed lawyer at the time of his arrest or during his time in police
custody, including during his interrogation by officers of the Directorate General of Internal
Security. Nor was he informed of his right to a defence or his right to remain silent. Moreover,
he did not receive assistance from a lawyer of his choosing or a court-appointed lawyer
during his interview with the public prosecutor or during his first appearance before the
investigating judge. The source therefore concludes that the authorities violated Mr. Riahi’s
rights under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
35.
In addition, the source notes that during his detention in the custody of the General
Directorate of Internal Security, Mr. Riahi did not benefit from legal assistance, including
during his interrogation, and was unable to receive visits from his family after his arrest.
Moreover, he was not examined by a doctor before, during or after his time in police custody.
The source argues that such conditions constitute incommunicado detention and created an
environment conducive to torture and ill-treatment. According to the source, Mr. Riahi was
tortured and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, perpetrated with premeditation
and full knowledge of the facts by officers of the General Directorate of Internal Security, in
violation of article 2 of the Convention against Torture and articles 7 and 10 (1) of the
Covenant.
36.
The source argues that the acts of torture and ill-treatment to which Mr. Riahi was
subjected were perpetrated with the aim of extracting a confession from him. Mr. Riahi’s
confessions were mentioned in the procès-verbaux of the hearing held by the Directorate
General of Internal Security. They were used by the public prosecutor in the case against
Mr. Riahi and attached to the prosecution file. Consequently, the source concludes that there
has been a violation of article 15 of the Convention Against Torture and article 14 (3) (g) of
the Covenant.
37.
Furthermore, the source notes that despite Mr. Riahi’s written complaint of torture,
which was acknowledged by the prosecutor during the trial, the prosecutor did not order an
investigation and did not submit any evidence to show that Mr. Riahi’s statements had been
made voluntarily and free from any coercion, in violation of article 12 of the Convention
against Torture.
38.
The source adds that the judge who presided over the trial did not order any action to
declare inadmissible the procès-verbaux issued by the Directorate General of Internal
4 See communication DZA 12/2021, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26905.
5 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 43.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
6
GE.24-18119
Security containing Mr. Riahi’s statements, which it claims were obtained by means of
torture. These statements were allegedly used as evidence to sentence Mr. Riahi to 18 months
in prison. In addition, the criminal court of appeal refused to declare Mr. Riahi’s statements
inadmissible and upheld the ruling against him. Consequently, the source concludes that the
authorities violated article 15 of the Convention Against Torture and article 14 (3) (g) of the
Covenant.
39.
According to the source, the violation of Mr. Riahi’s right to a defence from the outset
of his detention vitiated the entire procedure and undermined his right to a fair trial.
40.
The source also points out that the search of Mr. Riahi’s home on the day of his arrest
was ordered by the public prosecutor and not by a judicial authority. As confirmed in the
prosecution’s case file, during the search, the officers of the General Directorate of Internal
Security seized three telephones from which they extracted personal exchanges with other
activists considered to be political opponents of the Government. These private exchanges
and Mr. Riahi’s writings on social media networks were allegedly used as evidence by the
prosecutor and formed the basis of Mr. Riahi’s conviction. The source notes that, in
accordance with international human rights law, public prosecutors do not have the status of
judicial authorities. It argues that by entering Mr. Riahi’s home, searching it, seizing
telephones and exploiting them to extract their contents, without authorization from a judicial
authority, the authorities arbitrarily interfered in Mr. Riahi’s private life and home and
violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant and article 12 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.6
d.
Category V
41.
The source claims that Mr. Riahi was arrested and is being held because of his
membership of a movement opposing government policies, and in particular for his positions
critical of these policies, for his active participation in the peaceful demonstrations of the
Hirak movement since 22 February 2019, and because of his family ties to political opponents.
42.
The source recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when it constitutes a
violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on the person’s political
opinions and aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings.7
43.
In the present case, the source points out that Mr. Riahi belongs to a family known for
its opposition to the Government. It notes that Mr. Riahi’s brother, who has been detained
several times for his political opinions, was the subject of an opinion issued by the Working
Group.8 According to the source, members of Mr. Riahi’s family are frequently summoned
by the police, detained and sentenced, in some cases in absentia.
44.
Since the beginning of the pro-democracy Hirak movement, Mr. Riahi and his brother
have been harassed by the authorities for peacefully challenging government policies through
writings and videos shared on social media networks and for their political activism and
participation in peaceful demonstrations against these policies. According to the source, the
Government considers the two brothers to belong to the Rachad movement, which it
describes as a terrorist group. The source observes that several special procedures mandate
holders have expressed reservations and concerns about the way in which terrorism has been
defined and the procedures by which an entity is deemed terrorist, noting in particular the
risks of the violation of the right to freedom of association.9 In addition, the source points out
that Mr. Riahi and his brother have both been acquitted of the charge of membership of
terrorist groups.
45.
The source therefore concludes that Mr. Riahi’s detention is contrary to article 26 of
the Covenant and arbitrary under category V.
6 See, by analogy, CCPR/C/79/Add.110, para. 22.
7 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8 (e).
8 Opinion No. 45/2022; see also communication DZA 5/2023, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=28592.
9 See communication DZA 12/2021.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
7
(b)
Response from the Government
46.
On 6 June 2024, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Mr. Riahi to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about him by
5 August 2024 and to ensure his physical and mental integrity.
47.
The Government sent its response on 11 July 2024, in which it asserted that Mr. Riahi
had been arrested because of his involvement in criminal acts in connection with the
concealment of an individual wanted by the courts for a drug-related crime. It claims that
Mr. Riahi played a central role in planning the escape and concealment of this person. An
investigation was opened by El Khroub Court and extended to the town of Aïn Témouchent.
48.
The Government claims that Mr. Riahi has been implicated for acts punishable by law
and not for any political, civic or commercial activity. He was arrested on 19 November 2022
near his place of work in Aïn Témouchent by officers of the criminal investigation police of
the Oran regional judicial investigation directorate, on the basis of an order issued by the
competent public prosecutor’s office. He was interviewed, a procès-verbal was made and he
was informed of the reasons for his arrest. On 19 November 2022, he was placed in police
custody, which was extended with the authorization of the public prosecutor’s office for
48 hours on 21, 23, 25 and 27 November 2022, pursuant to article 51 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
49.
On 19 November 2022, the public prosecutor at Aïn Témouchent Court issued a
search warrant for Mr. Riahi’s home, then ordered the electronic search of his telephone the
following day. The searches were carried out in accordance with two written search warrants
issued by the public prosecutor’s office. Moreover, the Government specifies that Mr. Riahi’s
telephone was not confiscated but seized for exploitation, contrary to the source’s claims. It
notes that confiscation is an additional penalty under article 15 bis 1 of the Criminal Code
that may only be imposed by a judge after conviction.
50.
In accordance with article 51 bis 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Riahi
received visits from members of his family on 24 November 2022; he was allowed to make
a telephone call to a family member before this person visited him; and he received a visit
from his lawyer on 27 November 2022, at the midpoint of his time in custody. According to
the Government, this contact runs counter to the allegations of incommunicado detention
made by the source.
51.
The Government notes that before being brought before the public prosecutor at Aïn
Témouchent Court, Mr. Riahi was examined by a sworn independent doctor who issued a
medical certificate on 28 November 2022 attesting to his physical integrity.
52.
During his time in police custody, Mr. Riahi was placed in a room reserved for this
purpose that met all hygiene, lighting and ventilation requirements. Food, water and medicine
were available. The Government observes that neither Mr. Riahi nor his lawyer made any
complaints or claims in this regard.
53.
The Government notes that, in accordance with article 52 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, places of custody must be known to the public prosecutor and reserved for this
purpose, must ensure respect for human dignity and are supervised by the competent public
prosecutor, who may visit them at any time.
54.
The Government rejects the allegations of ill-treatment, which it considers unfounded
and in clear contradiction of the facts. It notes that such accusations must be substantiated,
since they cast doubt on the medical examination carried out by a sworn doctor and the
findings of the public prosecutor, before whom Mr. Riahi was presented in good health. The
Government points out that in the Algerian judicial system, public prosecutors have the status
of magistrate. It also notes that anyone placed under a committal order is examined as soon
as they arrive at the prison.
55.
On 29 November 2022, after the preliminary investigation had been completed,
Mr. Riahi was brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office associated with Aïn
Témouchent Court for the crime of criminal conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration and
for the offences of insulting a public authority during the exercise of its functions, insulting
the President of the Republic and disseminating propagandist publications likely to harm the
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
8
GE.24-18119
national interest. Other defendants in the same case were charged with terrorism. The
investigating judge ordered that Mr. Riahi be placed in pretrial detention at the Aïn
Témouchent Rehabilitation Centre on 29 November 2022 and extended this detention on
12 March 2023 and 12 July 2023.
56.
The Government claims that Mr. Riahi waived his right to be assisted by a lawyer
when he was brought before the public prosecutor and during his first hearing before the
investigating judge, even though he had been informed of his right to be assisted by a lawyer
of his choosing or to request the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer. It was only during another
phase of the judicial investigation that he decided to exercise this right by appointing eight
lawyers of his choosing to assist him. The Government states that during his detention at the
rehabilitation centre, Mr. Riahi received 66 visits, including 38 from his family and 28 from
his lawyers.
57.
On 4 December 2023, the Indictment Division decided to refer Mr. Riahi to the
Criminal Court of First Instance to stand trial for the crime of criminal conspiracy to facilitate
illegal immigration and the offence of disseminating propagandist publications likely to harm
the national interest, dismissing the other charges.
58.
On 11 February 2024, the Court of First Instance acquitted Mr. Riahi of the crime of
criminal conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration but sentenced him to 18 months in prison
and the payment of a fine of 50,000 dinars for the offences of deliberately concealing an
individual wanted by the courts with knowledge of the crime and disseminating propagandist
publications likely to harm the national interest.
59.
On 14 February 2024, Mr. Riahi and the public prosecutor’s office both appealed this
ruling. On 27 March 2024, the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of Mr. Riahi of
the crime of criminal conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration and his sentence to
18 months in prison and the payment of a fine of 50,000 dinars for the offences of deliberately
concealing an individual wanted by the courts with knowledge of the crime and disseminating
propagandist publications likely to harm the national interest. The public prosecutor lodged
an appeal against this decision.
60.
The Government points out that the judgments at first instance and on appeal were
handed down after Mr. Riahi had been questioned about the facts and presented with the
charges against him. His lawyers were able to express their observations, pleas and requests.
Mr. Riahi was heard before the judges deliberated, in accordance with the law, and contrary
to the source’s claims that Mr. Riahi was convicted without regard to his specific
circumstances or a detailed analysis of his case.
61.
The Government states that on 14 May 2023, Mr. Riahi lodged a complaint with the
investigating judge of Aïn Témouchent Court, in which he claimed to have been subjected to
physical assault during the preliminary investigation. The Government considers that these
allegations are not based on any foundation or evidence, since Mr. Riahi underwent a medical
examination that proved the absence of any traces of violence before his appearance before
the public prosecutor’s office. The Government adds that there is no trace on Mr. Riahi’s
body that could attest to an assault. It also notes that article 52 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure grants the defendant, his or her defence counsel and his or her family the right to
request a medical examination of the individual in custody at any time. They may also lodge
a complaint for forgery if they feel that the medical certificate issued by the doctor does not
reflect the reality of his or her health condition. The Government claims that in the present
case, neither Mr. Riahi, nor his lawyer, nor his family made use of any of these procedures.
62.
On 29 May 2024, Mr. Riahi completed his sentence in full and was released.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
63.
In its additional comments, the source reiterates its initial arguments and complains
of a lack of information provided by the authorities. It notes that the authorities have not
refuted most of the allegations made. In particular, the source notes that the Government
makes no reference to an arrest order, although it does mention a search warrant, and does
not respond to the source’s allegations that Mr. Riahi was not informed of the reasons for his
arrest. The source claims that incriminating statements were extracted from Mr. Riahi by
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
9
means of torture and used in the proceedings against him. The source points out that a
member of Mr. Riahi’s family has also been arbitrarily detained by the authorities for similar
reasons.
64.
In addition, the source claims that Mr. Riahi was never examined by a doctor, either
at the outset of his custody or after it, and never received medical assistance. It also reiterates
that Mr. Riahi received no visits or legal assistance from a lawyer during his detention in
police custody from 19 to 29 November 2022. The source notes that the Government has
submitted no evidence to support its claims.
2.
Discussion
65.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
66.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Riahi was arrested on 19 November 2022,
sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined 50,000 dinars. After serving his sentence in full,
he was released on 29 May 2024. 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. The Working
Group has decided to render the present opinion in view of the circumstances of Mr. Riahi’s
arrest and the violations allegedly committed against him.
67.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Riahi was arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.10 Mere assertions by the Government
that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s
allegations.11
(a)
Category I
68.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without a legal basis.
69.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi was arrested without being presented with an arrest
warrant or other document issued by a judicial authority and without being informed of the
reasons for his arrest, in violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.
70.
Under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of his or her liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. As the
Working Group has stated, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not
sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal
basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.12 This is typically done through an arrest
warrant, an arrest order or equivalent document.13 Furthermore, article 9 (2) of the Covenant
states that anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for
his or her arrest and must be promptly informed of any charges against him or her. Respect
for these rights is essential for the other rights set out in article 9 of the Covenant, since all
individuals must know the reasons for their arrest in order to challenge it effectively and must
be brought before a court or judge in order to lodge an appeal.
71.
The Working Group notes that the Government makes no reference to an arrest
warrant, although it does mention search warrants issued by the public prosecutor. The
Working Group considers credible the source’s allegations that Mr. Riahi was arrested
without being presented with a warrant or equivalent document, outside a situation
constituting flagrante delicto. It notes that a search warrant does not satisfy the requirement
to present a valid arrest warrant as detailed above.14 The Government has not clarified
10 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
11 Ibid.
12 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29, No. 46/2019, para. 51, and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
13 See, for example, opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64.
14 Opinion No. 63/2022, para. 111.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
10
GE.24-18119
whether Mr. Riahi was informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of the arrest. The
Working Group therefore considers that the arrest of Mr. Riahi was contrary to the rights
deriving from article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, article 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
72.
The source claims that Mr. Riahi was not brought before a judge until 29 November
2022, almost 11 days after his arrest on 19 November 2022, without any legitimate
justification for this delay. The Government claims that Mr. Riahi was placed in custody on
19 November 2022, and that this custody was extended with the authorization of the public
prosecutor’s office for 48 hours on 21, 23, 25 and 27 November 2022, pursuant to article 51
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
73.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant states that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge shall be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has stated,
48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detained person
“promptly” before a judge, and any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be
justified under the circumstances.15 Longer detention in the custody of law enforcement
officials without judicial control unnecessarily increases the risk of ill-treatment.16
74.
In the present case, the Working Group notes the absence of any response from the
Government that would justify the detention of Mr. Riahi for almost 11 days without judicial
control. With regard to the Government’s reference to national law, the Working Group notes
that a State’s compliance with its national legislation does not exempt it from complying with
its obligations under international human rights law. In the light of the foregoing, the
Working Group concludes that article 9 (3) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights have been violated.
75.
The source claims that Mr. Riahi was held incommunicado, as he was prevented from
contacting his family for at least the first five days of his custody. The Government claims
that the criminal investigation police gave him the opportunity to contact his family and
receive a visit from a lawyer, in accordance with the law. It indicates Mr. Riahi was visited
by two members of his family on 24 November 2022.
76.
The Working Group recalls that holding persons incommunicado may violate their
right under article 9 (4) of the Covenant to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before
a court.17 Giving prompt and regular access to family members may also contribute to
preventing torture and arbitrary detention.18 The Working Group points to its conclusions
below concerning the restriction of Mr. Riahi’s right of access to a lawyer. It considers that
Mr. Riahi’s detention without contact with a lawyer or his family amounts to incommunicado
detention for several days following his arrest and violates his right to challenge the
lawfulness of his detention before a court. Accordingly, the authorities violated article 9 (4)
of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
77.
In view of the above findings, the Working Group considers Mr. Riahi’s detention to
have no legal basis, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant and articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His detention was thus arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
78.
The source claims that Mr. Riahi’s detention was arbitrary under category II as it
resulted from his exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms protected by international law.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi was prosecuted for expressing peaceful political opinions
critical of government policies on social media networks and for actively participating in
peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations calling for the rule of law. The source adds that
Mr. Riahi was prosecuted under provisions of the Criminal Code that criminalize the exercise
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
16 Ibid.
17 See, for example, opinions No. 45/2017, No. 46/2017, No. 79/2017, No. 11/2018 and No. 35/2018.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58; and opinion No. 84/2020,
para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
11
of the rights protected by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.
79.
According to the Government, the arrest of Mr. Riahi was the result of an investigation
by the public prosecution service, in the course of which evidence was discovered indicating
that he was involved in the crime of criminal conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration and
the offences of insulting a public authority during the exercise of its functions, insulting the
President of the Republic and disseminating propagandist publications likely to harm the
national interest.
80.
Article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights provide that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and opinion. This right
includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
81.
The Working Group notes that, according to the source, the proceedings against
Mr. Riahi are in part based on his publication of writings expressing his opinions, which are
critical of government policies, and the sharing of videos of Algerian individuals, based
abroad, exposing certain government practices. The source claims that these writings and
shared videos constitute Mr. Riahi’s peaceful expression of his political opinions and in no
way incite violence or racial or religious hatred. The Government states that the accusations
against Mr. Riahi are linked to other facts, but does not address the source’s allegations under
category II. Furthermore, the Working Group notes that charges such as insulting the
President of the Republic and disseminating propagandist publications likely to harm the
national interest are intrinsically linked to expression and that the Government has not
demonstrated that Mr. Riahi’s speech falls within the exceptions set out in article 19 of the
Covenant. In view of these circumstances, the Working Group concludes that article 19 of
the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been violated.
82.
Moreover, articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant guarantee the right of peaceful assembly
and the right to freedom of association. Article 21 of the Covenant provides that no
restrictions may be placed on the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly other than those
which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public
health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 22 of the
Covenant states that everyone has the right to freedom of association with others, including
the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. According to the
source, Mr. Riahi has actively participated in the peaceful protests of the Hirak movement
since 22 February 2019 and has family ties to political opponents.
83.
The Working Group notes that the Government does not address the source’s
allegations under category II. Considering Mr. Riahi’s activism and the link between the
charges against him and his activities in connection with the Hirak movement, the Working
Group concludes that his arrest is also linked to the exercise of his rights under articles 21
and 22 of the Covenant and article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
84.
The source adds that Mr. Riahi is being held on charges under article 96 of the
Criminal Code. In 2018, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern about this and
similar criminal provisions, which continue to criminalize or fine activities related to the
exercise of freedom of expression, such as defamation or the insulting of public officials or
State institutions, and about allegations that these provisions are being used to hinder the
work of journalists and human rights defenders.19 Similarly, the Working Group is concerned
about the vagueness of the criminal provision on the basis of which Mr. Riahi is being held.
The Working Group recalls that laws that are vaguely and broadly worded may have a
deterrent effect on the exercise of protected rights, including freedom of thought, conscience
and religion, freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and
association, as they have potential for abuse, including arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The
principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision so that
individuals can access and understand the law and regulate their conduct accordingly.20 In the
19 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, par. 43.
20 See, for example, opinions No. 62/2018, para. 57–59, and No. 21/2023, paras. 45 and 46.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
12
GE.24-18119
present case, the application of vague and overly broad provisions supports the Working
Group’s conclusion that Mr. Riahi’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary under category II. In
addition, the Working Group considers that, in some circumstances, laws may be so vague
and overly broad that it is impossible to invoke them as a legal basis justifying the deprivation
of liberty.
85.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Riahi’s detention resulted from
the exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and opinion, peaceful assembly and
freedom of association, in violation of articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant. Mr. Riahi’s arrest and detention
were thus arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
86.
Given its finding that the detention of Mr. Riahi was arbitrary under category II, the
Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. However, Mr. Riahi was
tried and sentenced to 18 months in prison and the payment of a fine of 50,000 dinars, a
sentence he served in full on 29 May 2024. The Working Group will therefore consider the
alleged violations of Mr. Riahi’s right to a fair trial and due process.
87.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi was not provided with the assistance of a lawyer
of his choosing or appointed by the court at the time of his arrest or during his time in police
custody, including during his interrogation. Moreover, he was not informed of his right to a
defence or his right to remain silent. The Government claims that Mr. Riahi waived his right
to be assisted by a lawyer when he was brought before the public prosecutor and during his
initial hearing before the investigating judge, even though he had been informed of his right
to be assisted by a lawyer of his choosing and the possibility of requesting the appointment
of a legal-aid lawyer.
88.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the
Covenant and principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provide that everyone charged with a criminal
offence must be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law at a fair and public
trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. Article 14 (3) (b)
of the Covenant provides that all individuals charged with a criminal offence must have
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with
counsel of their own choosing. In addition, article 14 (3) (d) guarantees individuals the right
to defend themselves in person, to have legal assistance of their own choosing or to have
legal assistance assigned to them, without payment if the individual does not have sufficient
means to pay for it. These rights are also protected by principles 17 and 18 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
It is therefore incumbent upon States to permit and facilitate access to a lawyer, who should,
in principle, be of the detained person’s choosing, and to do so from the outset of his or her
detention.21
89.
In the present case, the Working Group notes the Government’s reply that Mr. Riahi
waived his right to be assisted by a lawyer when he was brought before the public prosecutor
and during his initial hearing before the investigating judge. However, according to the
Government, Mr. Riahi was brought before the public prosecutor on 29 November 2022,
after the preliminary investigation had been completed. The Government does not specify
when Mr. Riahi was notified of his right to appoint a lawyer of his choosing or appointed by
the court.
90.
In view of these circumstances, the Working Group considers that Mr. Riahi was
deprived of access to a lawyer for at least several days while in custody, including during his
interrogation. In this respect, it underlines its findings, set out above, that Mr. Riahi was held
incommunicado, without access to his family or a lawyer. Having found that Mr. Riahi was
denied access to a lawyer during a critical phase of his detention, namely his time in police
custody, and that the absence of a lawyer during this period may have prejudiced the
subsequent proceedings by increasing the risk of his making incriminating statements without
21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 34 and 35.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
13
legal assistance, the Working Group considers that the Government violated Mr. Riahi’s right
to prepare his defence with the assistance of a lawyer of his choosing, in violation of, inter
alia, article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant.
91.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi was tortured and subjected to inhuman and
degrading treatment, perpetrated premeditatedly and with full knowledge of the facts by
officers of the General Directorate of Internal Security. The source claims that despite the
written complaint lodged by Mr. Riahi reporting these acts of torture, the existence of which
was acknowledged by the prosecutor during the trial, the latter did not order the opening of
an investigation. The Government states that these allegations are unfounded and that, on
28 November 2022, a sworn independent doctor issued a medical certificate attesting to the
fact that Mr. Riahi was in good health.
92.
The Working Group emphasizes that the onus is on the Government to demonstrate
that it has not exerted pressure on the detained person and that no improperly obtained
evidence was used in the proceedings.22 The Working Group reiterates that it is absolutely
prohibited, under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant and article 2 of the Convention against
Torture, to which Algeria is a party, to subject a person to torture or ill-treatment in order to
obtain a confession. Any use of evidence obtain through torture is contrary to article 15 of
the Convention against Torture, and the Working Group considers that the use of a forced
confession mars the entire proceedings, regardless of whether there is other evidence in
support of the ruling.23
93.
The Government has not provided detailed and substantiated information to refute the
source’s allegations that Mr. Riahi was tortured and subjected to ill-treatment during his
detention and interrogation. 24 Nor has it demonstrated that a full and independent
investigation was carried out to ensure that any evidence that might have been obtained
through ill-treatment was excluded from Mr. Riahi’s trial. The source claims that Mr. Riahi’s
confessions were mentioned in the procès-verbaux of the hearing before the public prosecutor
during the Mr. Riahi’s prosecution and attached to the prosecution case file. In view of the
credible allegations that Mr. Riahi was subjected to acts of torture or ill-treatment and that
evidence obtained through such acts was used, which the Government has not convincingly
refuted, as well as the prohibition of the use of such evidence under article 15 of the
Convention against Torture, the Working Group considers that the source has demonstrated
a violation of article 14 of the Covenant. The Working Group concludes that the use of such
evidence contravenes the right not to confess guilt protected by article 14 (3) (g) of the
Covenant and the right to a fair trial protected by article 14 (1) of the Covenant and articles 10
and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
94.
In view of the similarities between the present case and at least one other previously
considered case, the Working Group has decided to refer the case to the Special Rapporteur
on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.25
95.
Lastly, the source argues that the search of Mr. Riahi’s home amounts to arbitrary
interference with his home and privacy and claims that the evidence discovered during this
search was used in the proceedings against him. Furthermore, according to the source, the
fact that the public prosecutor is not a judicial authority means that it was not empowered to
authorize the search of his home. The Working Group recalls that it has consistently refrained
from taking the place of the national judicial authorities or acting as a kind of supranational
tribunal when it is urged to review the application of national law by the judiciary or other
authorities. 26 In view of the existence of a search warrant and the lack of sufficient
information demonstrating that the search had not been duly authorized and explaining how
22 Opinion No. 79/2022, para. 72.
23 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 91.
24 Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), para. 393, according to which the absence of
physical evidence of torture or other ill-treatment should not be construed to suggest that torture or
ill-treatment did not occur, as many forms of abuse leave no permanent marks.
25 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 91.
26 See, for example, opinions No. 40/2005, No. 15/2017, No. 16/2017, No. 49/2019 and No. 58/2019.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
14
GE.24-18119
the seized items were used in the proceedings against Mr. Riahi, the Working Group
considers that it is not in a position to formulate conclusions in this regard.
96.
Nonetheless, and in the light of all the above, the Working Group concludes that the
violations of Mr. Riahi’s right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give his detention an
arbitrary character under category III.
(d)
Category V
97.
According to the source, Mr. Riahi was targeted because of his membership of a
movement opposing government policies, and in particular for his positions critical of these
policies, for his active participation in the peaceful demonstrations of the Hirak movement
since 22 February 2019 and because of his family ties to political opponents. The
Government claims that the proceedings against Mr. Riahi had their basis in his commission
of acts punishable by law and are thus unrelated to any political, civic or commercial activity.
98.
The Working Group takes into account a number of non-cumulative factors in order
to determine whether a deprivation of liberty is discriminatory in nature. These factors
include whether the deprivation of liberty is part of a pattern of persecution of the detained
person, involving, for example, previous detention; whether other persons with similarly
distinguishing characteristics have also been persecuted; and whether the context suggests
that the authorities have detained the person on discriminatory grounds or to prevent him or
her from exercising his or her human rights.27
99.
The source claims – and the Government does not convincingly refute this claim –
that Mr. Riahi is a peaceful activist for democracy in Algeria and has participated in every
peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations of the Hirak movement since 22 February 2019, and
that he was previously arrested in September 2020 and sentenced to 1 year in prison for
publishing a text on social media networks criticizing government policies.
100.
In this context, and noting the absence of a detailed and substantiated response from
the Government to refute the source’s observations under category V and to justify
Mr. Riahi’s arrest and detention, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty
of Mr. Riahi was part of a practice that targeted him because of his activism. The Working
Group also underlines its findings, in other cases brought before it, that other activists of the
Hirak movement are being arbitrarily detained in Algeria.28
101.
Accordingly, the Working Group considers credible the source’s allegations that
Mr. Riahi was deprived of his liberty for discriminatory reasons, specifically because of the
political opinions he expressed on social media networks and his participation in peaceful
pro-democracy demonstrations as part of the Hirak movement. The Working Group therefore
finds a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. The deprivation of liberty to which Mr. Riahi was
subjected was thus arbitrary under category V.
3.
Disposition
102.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mohamed Riahi, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, was arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
103.
The Working Group requests the Government of Algeria to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Riahi 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 Covenant.
27 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
28 Opinions No. 7/2021, paras. 72 and 91, and No. 45/2022, para. 96. See also opinion No. 24/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/29
GE.24-18119
15
104.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Mr. Riahi an enforceable right to
compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
105.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Riahi and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
106.
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 appropriate action.
107.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
108.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Riahi;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Riahi’s
rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Algeria with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
109.
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.
110.
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.
111.
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.29
[Adopted on 30 August 2024]
29 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.