Opinion; Subjects: MOROCCO, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.24-18736 (E) 161224 161224
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its one hundredth session, 26–30 August 2024
Opinion No. 43/2024, concerning Nasser Zefzafi (Morocco)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 28 February 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Morocco a communication concerning Nasser Zefzafi. The
Government replied to the communication on 29 May 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/2024/43
General Assembly
Distr.: General
25 October 2024
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
2
GE.24-18736
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Nasser Zefzafi, a Moroccan citizen born on 4 November 1979, is a political activist
from the Rif region and the leader of the Hirak Rif movement. He usually resides in
Al Hoceïma.
(i)
Context
5.
Hirak Rif is said to be calling for greater social and economic rights for the people of
the Rif. At least 127 demonstrators and activists have reportedly been arrested by the police.2
6.
On 26 May 2017, the imam of the Mohammed V mosque in Al Hoceïma purportedly
criticized the protests. Mr. Zefzafi purportedly interrupted the sermon, accusing the imam of
acting as a spokesperson for the authorities and manipulating religion to dissuade people
from joining Hirak. Having found the mosque empty on their arrival, the law enforcement
authorities reportedly went to the home of a member of Mr. Zefzafi’s family, where they
found Mr. Zefzafi on the roof in front of a large crowd. The authorities ordered the crowd to
disperse and, when it failed to do so, resorted to using force.3 They arrested a number of
people, including a member of Mr. Zefzafi’s family.4 Mr Zefzafi fled.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
On 29 May 2017, a dozen police officers from the national brigade of the criminal
investigation department reportedly broke down the door of the house where Mr. Zefzafi and
two other activists were staying. Mr. Zefzafi was allegedly beaten and sexually abused. The
police urinated on him and urged him to shout “long live the King!” Mr. Zefzafi was arrested
and transferred with the other two activists to Al Hoceïma police station, where he was beaten
again. The blows left cuts on his scalp and under his eye and bruises on his back.
8.
The three persons were then reportedly taken to Al Hoceïma Airport, where they were
hooded, handcuffed and flown by helicopter to the headquarters of the Directorate-General
of National Security in Casablanca. Mr. Zefzafi’s family was purportedly informed of his
transfer on the evening of 29 May 2017.
9.
At the headquarters of the Directorate-General of National Security, Mr. Zefzafi
received stitches and was given clean clothes. Police officers allegedly questioned him night
and day during his eight days in police custody, giving him almost no rest and no access to a
lawyer.
10.
Mr. Zefzafi was held in police custody from 29 May to 5 June 2017, with the period
of custody being extended by the Crown Prosecutor on 1 June 2017 as Mr. Zefzafi was
suspected of having committed acts that undermine the internal security of the State. He was
allegedly held incommunicado throughout his time in police custody, being unable to
communicate with his family or lawyer. On 12 June 2017, his family was allowed to visit
him for the first time, for a period of 10 minutes. Mr Zefzafi had bruises on his face.
11.
On 5 June 2017, Mr. Zefzafi appeared before the Crown Prosecutor of the Casablanca
Court of Appeal, charged with participating in the offence of undermining the internal
security of the State by engaging in incitement to commit an attack with the aim of causing
destruction, death and looting in one or more douars or villages, conspiring to undermine the
internal security of the State, followed by the commission of a preparatory act, undermining
the internal security of the State by receiving sums of money for the purpose of carrying out
or funding in Morocco an activity or propaganda likely to undermine the integrity,
sovereignty or independence of the Kingdom, or to weaken the loyalty that citizens owe to
the State and the institutions of the Moroccan people, participating by incitement to commit
2 See communication MAR 1/2017, available at:
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=23190.
3 Casablanca Court of Appeal, ruling on Hirak Rif, 26 June 2018, criminal chamber of first instance,
p. 794.
4 Opinion No. 69/2020, para. 56.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
3
an act of violence against law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties,
resulting in bloodshed, insulting a public authority and law enforcement officers in the
performance of their duties and participating in this offence, inciting members of the public
to undermine the territorial integrity of the Kingdom and participating in this offence, wilfully
obstructing religious worship and wilfully disturbing the peace, participating in an armed
rebellion, participating in the organization of public demonstrations and holding of public
gatherings without prior notification and participating in an armed assembly, under
articles 129, 201, 206, 221, 263, 265, 267, 300 to 302 and 304 of the Criminal Code and
articles 9, 14 and 29 of the Public Assemblies Act of 1958.
12.
Mr. Zefzafi was allegedly denied access to a lawyer until after his period of police
custody, and the lawyers had difficulty gaining entry to the prison. Visits were strictly
supervised and kept short by prison officers.
13.
The first-instance trial of Hirak Rif took place between September 2017 and June 2018
and consisted of more than 80 hearings involving 54 defendants who had taken part in the
movement’s protests. The strict security measures and the fact that the hearings were held in
Casablanca, more than 500 km from Al Hoceïma, purportedly hampered access to the trial
for media workers, civil society, families and the public.
14.
The defendants rejected the records of police questioning and claimed that their
statements had been extracted under torture or other ill-treatment. The court dismissed these
allegations and used the records as the main source of evidence. On 26 and 28 June 2018, the
54 defendants were handed custodial sentences, including a 20-year sentence in Mr. Zefzafi’s
case.
15.
According to the source, the ruling held Mr. Zefzafi responsible, as a leader, for the
damage to property and harm to persons that occurred during the protests. No evidence of his
guilt was put forward. The ruling states that Mr. Zefzafi interrupted the sermon on 26 May
2017, called the imam an antichrist and called on those present to attack the authorities.
According to the source, the videos taken of Mr. Zefzafi that day contradict these allegations.
He was also accused of referring to the colonialism of Morocco, describing certain members
of the Government as thieves, murderers or members of a mafia, waving Amazigh flags and
the Rif flag, and organizing and taking part in numerous unauthorized demonstrations. The
ruling found that Mr. Zefzafi’s calls and messages to the diaspora were aimed at illegally
financing the separation of the Rif, and that the codes and encryption used were evidence of
a criminal network.5
16.
In August 2018, pardons were granted to 11 of the defendants, although none of the
movement’s leaders were pardoned. The appeal proceedings took place from December 2018
to April 2019. The court reportedly refused to dismiss the confessions, forbade the defendants
from mentioning the reasons for the demonstrations, which it considered to have a political
dimension, and refused to hear the defence’s case.
17.
Observers described the trial as a sham, highlighting the use of confessions extracted
under torture, unlawfully obtained evidence and vaguely worded laws, as well as the use of
prolonged pretrial detention, including solitary confinement, the lack of impartiality of the
court, the predetermined outcome of the trial, and the defence lawyers’ fears of arrest.
18.
Mr. Zefzafi’s conviction was upheld on appeal on 6 April 2019 and in cassation on
23 June 2021.
5 Casablanca Court of Appeal, ruling on Hirak Rif, pp. 791, 792, 2,864–2,874, 2,878–2,880, 2,886,
2,894–2,897, 2,899–2,909, 2,911, 2,920, 2,923 and 2,929.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
4
GE.24-18736
19.
During his detention, Mr. Zefzafi reportedly developed hemiplegia and continued to
bear signs of injuries allegedly caused by acts of torture. His state of health continues to
deteriorate; he has suffered from three chronic illnesses since his incarceration and has a
number of respiratory problems. The source notes that several human rights mechanisms
have criticized detention conditions in Morocco.6
(iii)
Legal analysis
a.
Category I
20.
According to the source, the police officers who arrested Mr. Zefzafi did not show
him an arrest warrant, even though a warrant had been issued by the Crown Prosecutor of Al
Hoceïma on 26 May 2017, and the conditions for an arrest in flagrante delicto had not been
met. Furthermore, he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of the arrest
and was not informed of the charges against him until 5 June 2017.
21.
Mr. Zefzafi was held incommunicado for seven days following his arrest, without
being able to contact a lawyer or his family, and his family was not informed that he had been
transferred to Casablanca for nearly 24 hours. Mr. Zefzafi was questioned without a lawyer
being present and was not permitted to see his family until 12 June 2017. The source notes
that national law does not provide for the right to consult a lawyer during the initial phase of
police custody, which is contrary to the recommendations of the Committee against Torture.7
22.
The source notes that, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant,8 Mr. Zefzafi
remained in police custody for eight days, from 29 May to 5 June 2017, for “undermining
the internal security of the State”. The source maintains that the circumstances of the case do
not justify extending Mr. Zefzafi’s police custody.
23.
Lastly, the source notes that articles 263, 265 and 267 of the Criminal Code, on the
basis of which Mr. Zefzafi was convicted, are vaguely worded and restrict rights and
freedoms, disregarding the principle of legality.
24.
The source therefore concludes that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention is arbitrary under
category I.
b.
Category II
25.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention results from the exercise of rights and
freedoms enshrined in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 19, 21, 22 and 27 of the Covenant.
26.
In its view, the acts of which Mr Zefzafi is accused fall within the scope of the rights
to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and the authorized restrictions
on these rights are not applicable in this case.
27.
The source points out that States may not impose punishment for insults, criticism or
giving offence to religious ideas, icons or places.9 It states that Mr. Zefzafi has never called
for hatred on national, racial or religious grounds in a manner that would constitute
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. It adds that, if Mr. Zefzafi was accused of
insulting the police and State institutions,10 this fell within the scope of his freedom of
expression and could not be considered a criminal offence.
28.
The source also states that, in violation of article 27 of the Covenant, Mr. Zefzafi was
arrested and convicted for peacefully defending his right and that of the Amazigh community
to have their own culture and to use their language and flag.11
6 Opinion No. 69/2020, para. 54.
7 CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 9.
8 See, for example, opinions No. 59/2019, para. 51; No. 65/2019, para. 64; and No. 79/2022, para. 61.
9 A/HRC/40/58, para. 22; and Human Rights Committee, general comment no. 34 (2011), para. 48.
10 Casablanca Court of Appeal, ruling on Hirak Rif, p. 2,923.
11 Ibid. pp. 2,894–2,897 and 2,911.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
5
29.
In addition, Mr. Zefzafi was described as a separatist12 despite there being no evidence
to support this. The source recalls that the acts of possessing and displaying an Amazigh flag
and participating in demonstrations to promote the rights of Indigenous Peoples fall within
the scope of articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.13
30.
The source also states that the acts of which Mr. Zefzafi is accused are protected by
the right to freedom of association. According to the source, the ruling cites as incriminating
evidence Mr. Zefzafi’s relations with the diaspora of the Rif, notably in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, a diaspora which the Government considers to be separatist. It states that
Mr. Zefzafi has never shown any desire to carry out non-peaceful actions against the
Government, and that funding from the diaspora has never been used to finance violent
actions that could be seen as an offence against national security.
31.
The source goes on to note that Mr. Zefzafi was accused of taking part in unauthorized
demonstrations.14 It claims that, in arresting around 450 people in connection with the Hirak
protests, the Government has manifestly violated its international obligations in a widespread
and systematic manner.
32.
Lastly, the source notes that the ruling is based on a list of persons who were injured
and objects that were damaged during the demonstrations and that these acts were carried out
by “supporters of Nasser Zefzafi” without there being any evidence that he was behind this
damage.15 It adds that Mr. Zefzafi called on the demonstrators to demonstrate peacefully but
that, without any evidence whatsoever, the court considered that the term al-slimia, meaning
“peaceful”, was a code word used to incite the demonstrators to attack the authorities.16 The
source points out that isolated acts of violence by some participants should not be attributed
to others, to the organizers or to the assembly as such.17
c.
Category III
33.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi was subjected to torture and ill-treatment,
including during his arrest. Two doctors reportedly confirmed that he was subjected to
disproportionate force during his arrest. 18 The ruling justifies this on the grounds that
Mr. Zefzafi allegedly resisted arrest.19
34.
Mr. Zefzafi was also allegedly subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment at Oukacha Prison, the governor of which ordered that he be held in solitary
confinement for almost one year, from 12 September 2017 to 13 August 2018. In October
2019, a recording of Mr. Zefzafi’s voice described to the public the acts of torture to which
he claims to have been subjected during his arrest. After this recording was leaked, the guards
stripped Mr. Zefzafi of his clothes in the middle of winter and kept him in a dark pit, in
handcuffs, for 12 days. All contact with his family was prohibited for 45 days.
35.
Mr. Zefzafi claimed that the authorities extracted his statements by force and by
threatening a member of his family with rape. The judge refused to consider these allegations.
The source points out that any conviction based on confessions obtained under torture is
contrary to the right to a fair trial. It recalls that it is for the judiciary to establish that such
statements are not obtained through the application of pressure of any kind.20
12 Ibid. pp. 2,861, 2,876, 2,881, 2,896 and 2,897.
13 Opinion No. 53/2020, para. 29.
14 Casablanca Court of Appeal, ruling on Hirak Rif, p. 2,878.
15 Ibid. pp. 791, 2,897, 2,899, 2,909 and 2,911.
16 Ibid. p. 2,935.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment no. 37 (2020), para. 17.
18 National Human Rights Council of Morocco, Rapport sur les protestations d’Al Hoceima,
March 2020, pp. 109 and 110.
19 Casablanca Court of Appeal, ruling on Hirak Rif, pp. 848, 2,646 and 2,647.
20 Opinion No. 78/2019, para. 52.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
6
GE.24-18736
36.
The source also claims that Mr. Zefzafi was convicted following a mass trial, in
violation of his right to a fair trial. In the present case, 54 defendants were tried in a court of
first instance and 43 were heard on appeal. The source recalls that mass trials are
incompatible with the interests of justice and do not meet the standards of a fair trial, given
that they do not allow for a specific assessment of individual responsibility and are contrary
to the right of every person to defend himself or herself before a court and to be presumed
innocent.21
37.
The source also states that the authorities violated the principle of equality of arms
when, in the first-instance trial, four defence lawyers were denied access to evidence
presented by the public prosecutor’s office. According to the source, the presiding judge
questioned each defendant and the defence lawyers were unable to object to the questions or
question their clients to obtain clarification. The source points out that principle 12 of the
Guidelines on the Role of Public Prosecutors establishes that “prosecutors shall, in
accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and
respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights.”
38.
According to the source, only 12 defence witnesses were heard, compared with
22 prosecution witnesses. The court refused to hear more than 50 defence witnesses, stating
that it was not necessary to hear them and that the facts had been proved by an inspection
report that could not be contested.22 The exculpatory evidence that was admitted purportedly
concerned only minor offences, which hampered the defence.
39.
The source also states that Mr. Zefzafi and the other defendants were placed in tinted
glass docks during the trial proceedings, in violation of their right to be presumed innocent.23
40.
Furthermore, the court of appeal ruling was issued four months after the start of the
hearings. The source states that, given the high number of charges and defendants, the court
was unable to examine the responsibility of each defendant in a fair and individualized
manner within this time frame.
41.
The source also claims that Mr. Zefzafi’s sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for acts
which it considers to fall within the scope of his rights is disproportionate and that his
detention is therefore arbitrary.24
d.
Category V
42.
The source explains that the Hirak Rif protests arose in reaction to the marginalization
and discrimination suffered by the Amazigh communities of the Rif.25 These protests called
for social, economic and cultural change in the region. The source recalls that when a
detention results from the exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption
that it also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based
on political or other views.26
43.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi was arrested and convicted because of his
membership of the Amazigh community, his political views, his role as leader of the Hirak
Rif protests and his criticism of and protests against the Government. The source concludes
that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention is arbitrary under category V.
21 Opinions No. 65/2019, para. 75; No. 5/2020, para. 86; No. 34/2021, para. 91; and No. 65/2022,
para. 109.
22 Casablanca Court of Appeal, ruling on Hirak Rif, p. 796.
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment no. 32 (2007), para. 30; and A/HRC/11/41/Add.2,
para. 37 (para. 2).
24 Opinion No. 7/2022, para. 78.
25 E/C.12/MAR/CO/3, para. 32; CERD/C/MAR/CO/17-18, paras. 11, 17 and 20; and
A/HRC/41/54/Add.1, paras. 37, 40 and 79.
26 Opinion No. 27/2023, para. 110.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
7
(b)
Response from the Government
44.
On 28 February 2024, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Mr. Zefzafi to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about him by
29 April 2024 and to ensure his physical and mental integrity.
45.
In accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work, the
Government requested an extension, which was granted with a deadline of 29 May 2024.
46.
In its reply of 29 May 2024, the Government rejects the source’s allegations and
recalls the detailed information provided to special procedures mandate holders.27
47.
The Government claims that international human rights mechanisms are being
exploited for political purposes. It explains that the death of a fisherman in 2016 led to
widespread, initially peaceful, protests in the city of Al Hoceïma and neighbouring cities.
The violence escalated on 26 March 2017, when masked persons set fire to a building housing
law enforcement officers. The protests continued in a violent manner, with 589 law
enforcement officers injured and several police cars set on fire.
48.
According to the Government, the investigations concluded that Mr. Zefzafi was
involved in activities aimed at undermining territorial integrity, namely, coordinating actions
with separatists abroad with a view to separating the Rif from the rest of the country and
inciting others to participate in those actions. Mr. Zefzafi exploited the demands of the people
of Al Hoceïma by organizing unauthorized demonstrations and engaging in vandalism,
defamation, arson attacks against public and private property, disobedience, resistance and
violence directed at the police. Analysis of the calls and messages on Mr. Zefzafi’s phones
revealed that he was running a secret network calling for the separation of the Rif region and
promoting its flag. The records also showed that members of the network had received
funding from foreign entities. Several videos and other publications by members of the
network, allegedly led by Mr. Zefzafi, reveal a criminal operation that aims to undermine the
internal security of the State and is supported by other movements such as the Mouvement
du 18 septembre pour l’indépendance du Rif. Some messages called for police officers to be
targeted, making their names and personal photos public.
49.
According to the Government, on 26 May 2017, Mr. Zefzafi deliberately disrupted
prayer services by making remarks amounting to hate speech that violated the sanctity of a
place of worship. When the police came to arrest him on the orders of the court of first
instance, Mr. Zefzafi reportedly barricaded himself onto the roof of the house and enlisted
the help of his supporters, who attacked the authorities and caused varying degrees of harm
to people and damage to property. Mr. Zefzafi fled but was arrested on 29 May 2017, along
with other persons. They were all taken to the headquarters of the national division of the
criminal investigation department in Casablanca. The Government states that an arrest
warrant was issued by the competent judicial authority.
50.
On 2 June 2017, the case was referred to an investigating committee attached to the
Casablanca Court of Appeal. On 5 June, Mr. Zefzafi was presented to the prosecutor’s office
of the same court. After a preliminary examination, the judge ordered an investigation.
Mr. Zefzafi was indicted on a number of charges under articles 129, 201, 206, 221, 263, 265,
267, 300–302 and 304 of the Criminal Code and articles 9, 14 and 20 of the Public Assemblies
Act of 1958.
51.
On 26 June 2018, Mr. Zefzafi was convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
According to the Government, all fair trial guarantees were met during the trial. The decision
was upheld on appeal on 5 April 2019, and an application for judicial review was dismissed
on 23 June 2021.
52.
According to the Government, when the police arrived, Mr. Zefzafi went onto the roof
of his house and incited a gathering of people armed with sticks and stones to rise up against
the authorities, who had ordered them to disperse. Mr. Zefzafi made no attempt to calm his
supporters and was on the run until his arrest on 29 May 2017. During his arrest, Mr. Zefzafi
suffered a slight injury to his head and under his left eye as a result of his violent resistance.
27 See communication MAR 1/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
8
GE.24-18736
The Government states that the arrest was conducted in accordance with legal procedures
and international law. In addition, the criminal investigation police informed Mr. Zefzafi of
the charges against him as soon as he was arrested and of his right to remain silent. The court
dismissed the defence’s complaints in this regard.
53.
Following his arrest, Mr. Zefzafi was placed in pretrial detention at the headquarters
of the national division of the criminal investigation department in Casablanca and was not
held incommunicado. His period of detention was extended by the Crown Prosecutor
attached to the Al Hoceïma Court of Appeal on 1 June 2017, in accordance with article 66 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Government notes that the nature and seriousness of
the events in and around Al Hoceïma, the number of people involved and the need to
complete the investigations made it necessary to keep Mr. Zefzafi in detention.
54.
The Government points to contradictory allegations made by the source, namely, the
source’s claims that Mr. Zefzafi’s family reported his transfer to the source on the day of his
arrest but were not informed of his transfer to Casablanca until 24 hours after the arrest.
According to the Government, the criminal investigation officer in charge of the investigation
ordered that the families of the arrested persons be informed of the arrests and the reasons
for them. A member of Mr. Zefzafi’s family was informed of his arrest by phone beforehand,
and Mr. Zefzafi also had the opportunity to call this family member.
55.
Mr. Zefzafi also received a number of visits from lawyers during his pretrial detention.
In response to the claims that Mr. Zefzafi was questioned day and night without a lawyer, the
Government maintains that he was afforded all legal guarantees. After his lawyers had visited
the national division of the criminal investigation department, they confirmed that he was in
a good state of health. Mr. Zefzafi was informed of his right to contact his family after his
arrest and was allowed to call a family member as soon as he was transferred to the
headquarters. A doctor treated Mr Zefzafi’s injuries. He was examined again on 4 June 2017.
56.
The Government argues that articles 263, 265 and 267 of the Criminal Code are
clearly worded, leaving the judicial authorities no room for manoeuvre in their
implementation.
57.
The Government notes that the Constitution and national law guarantee freedom of
opinion, expression, association and peaceful assembly for all persons throughout the
country. It adds that Amazigh identity is one of the components of Moroccan national identity
and that Mr. Zefzafi was not arrested or prosecuted for peacefully defending his and the
Amazigh community’s right to enjoy its culture and use its dialect.
58.
According to the Government, Mr. Zefzafi was arrested for committing unlawful acts,
in particular, for participating in events in and around Al Hoceïma, including unauthorized
demonstrations, and engaging in acts of vandalism, arson and violence against the police,
including throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. In addition, Mr. Zefzafi’s supporters have
confirmed that the word al-slimia was used as a code word to call for violence against the
police. This slogan has been used in connection with other violent incidents.
59.
The Government claims that Mr. Zefzafi was convicted following a fair trial, on the
basis of witness statements, phone calls, and a selection of photos, videos and messages
published by Mr. Zefzafi on social networks. Recordings of the calls revealed that the
participants in the above-mentioned events were receiving money from separatists living
abroad, who were buying large quantities of weapons to smuggle into the country, with the
aim of triggering a revolution and war in Al Hoceïma. The Court of Appeal found in favour
of the lower court, and the Court of Cassation dismissed the application for judicial review
on the grounds that no violation of the right to a fair trial had been established. The
Government notes that the rights to freedom of expression and assembly cannot constitute
grounds for a waiver of responsibility for prohibited acts undermining public security and
order.
60.
The Government denies that there is any tendency to restrict the right to freedom of
assembly, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. It adds that the demonstrations and rallies
violated the laws governing public gatherings. According to the Government, persons,
including Mr Zefzafi, were holding knives and stones, a number of law enforcement officials
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
9
were attacked and several items of public property were destroyed. Persons carrying the
national flag were also reportedly attacked and threatened.
61.
With regard to the nature of Mr. Zefzafi’s statements, the Government claims that he
called the imam of the mosque a “charlatan” and urged the worshippers to rise up and oppose
the State apparatus, in violation of article 221 of the Criminal Code, which punishes anyone
who intentionally disrupts the start of an act of worship or a religious festival, or intentionally
causes a disturbance of such a nature as to disturb the peace and dignity thereof.
62.
The Government contests the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, which it
considers to be neither detailed nor supported. It claims that Mr. Zefzafi received the
necessary care after his arrest, as documented in a report dated 29 June 2017 that Mr. Zefzafi
signed without objection. At his first hearing, Mr. Zefzafi confirmed that his injuries had
been sustained during the arrest. During his examination, which began on 5 June 2017, he
referred to acts of violence perpetrated by the police. The investigating judge ordered a
medical examination.28 An investigation concluded that Mr. Zefzafi had not been mistreated,
that the arrest had been conducted in line with the regulations and that he had received the
necessary care. Mr Zefzafi’s lawyer confirmed that he was in good health. On this basis, the
prosecutor ruled on 24 April 2018 that no offence had been committed, and the defence was
informed accordingly.
63.
According to the Government, the source did not provide any precise information, or
specify a date or place, relating to the other allegations of ill-treatment, preventing the
authorities from checking whether they were true. Mr. Zefzafi was held in solitary
confinement in a room whose size, space, standard of cleanliness, ventilation and lighting
were in line with standards. The Government claims that the allegation that he was kept
handcuffed and naked in a dark pit for 12 days are unfounded and were recorded by
Mr. Zefzafi to put pressure on the prison administration following an incident on 13 October
2019. The Government adds that Mr. Zefzafi has enjoyed all his rights and has received
22 visits from lawyers, 6 from the Regional Human Rights Commission and 23 from his
family.
64.
Mr. Zefzafi never claimed that his statements had been extracted by force or that the
police had beaten him or threatened to rape a member of his family when he was questioned
by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. In his initial testimony, he stated that he
had been well treated and had not been subjected to torture or violence.
65.
According to the Government, a mass trial was necessary as each defendant had
contributed to and participated in the commission of criminal acts under the same
circumstances, at the same time and place, and with the same purpose, and the cases shared
the same legal elements. The lower and appellate courts assessed each case separately and
individually, and the mass nature of the trial did not violate fair trial guarantees. Mr. Zefzafi
was given all fair trial guarantees. The Government describes the many measures taken to
make the trial public and transparent. Before the trial began, the judge reportedly confirmed
the identity of each defendant and ensured that those who refused to appear were informed
of the hearing. The defendants were informed of the charges against them, an interpreter was
appointed to interpret from Arabic into Amazigh and the defendants were able to challenge
the evidence and witnesses, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
66.
The Government recalls that national law protects the presumption of innocence and
the rights to a fair trial and to a lawyer. It describes the measures taken by the court to
safeguard these rights. The court treated all the parties impartially, allowing them to present
any defence that they deemed necessary and to make any observations or objections that they
wished to make. It also presented them with all the evidence. The National Human Rights
Council has reportedly confirmed the court’s impartiality.
67.
Mr. Zefzafi was examined in around 11 hearings, during which all the parties had the
opportunity to express themselves and ask questions. The court ensured that the trial was fair
and complied with procedural rules. The defence had the opportunity to call witnesses and
question them in detail. The Government claims that the defence also requested that
28 A copy of the report was submitted to the Working Group.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
10
GE.24-18736
government officials, ambassadors and professors be summoned to testify about the historical
and political context, which, in its view, was unrelated to the alleged offences. According to
the Government, none of the defendants were handcuffed until they appeared before the
presiding judge. They were held in a transparent glass room designed to receive the
defendants and provide security for the courtroom. They were able to communicate with the
court and their lawyers.
68.
On appeal, Mr. Zefzafi and other defendants refused to appear. After the court had
ordered them to appear and they had refused, it ordered the proceedings to continue in their
absence and a clerk of the court was sent to the prison to read them a summary of the
proceedings. The Government rejects the source’s allegations that the court did not allocate
sufficient time to consider each case individually and fairly. The court took account of the
mitigating circumstances and sentenced Mr. Zefzafi to the lightest legally permissible
penalty.
69.
The Government states that the source’s allegations that Mr. Zefzafi was arrested and
detained on discriminatory grounds are unfounded. It argues that the Constitution enshrines
the diversity of national identity, including Amazigh identity; that national law criminalizes
and punishes discrimination; and that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention is unrelated to his geographical
affiliation. It recalls that Mr. Zefzafi was convicted of illegal acts.
70.
Lastly, the Government maintains that Mr. Zefzafi is being held in conditions that
meet international standards. He has access to medical care, including outside specialists, and
enjoys all his rights. The Government concludes that Mr. Zefzafi’s arrest was not arbitrary
and that the proceedings leading to his conviction complied with national and international
law and fair trial guarantees.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
71.
On 2 July 2024, the source submitted additional comments in response to the
Government’s reply, reiterating the initial allegations and denying the Government’s
assertions. It contests the claim that it is exploiting international mechanisms and states that
the Government has not discharged its burden of proof.
72.
The source notes that the Government accuses Mr. Zefzafi of acts carried out by other
people without linking the charges against him to any specific act that he may have
committed. It maintains that no arrest warrant was produced at the time of his arrest and that
the Government did not specify when his family was informed of his arrest or demonstrate
that he was able to contact his family before 12 June 2017. The source adds that it has not
been shown that the exceptions provided for in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant were
applicable.
73.
According to the source, the Government does not sufficiently or comprehensively
refute the allegations of torture and ill-treatment. It notes that force used during Mr. Zefzafi’s
arrest cannot be considered legitimate, necessary or proportionate, and that the evidence of
sexual violence could have disappeared by the date on which the medical report was drawn
up. The source provides further information on the allegations initially made about the
violation of Mr. Zefzafi’s right to a fair trial. With regard to category V, it believes that, in
referring to Mr. Zefzafi’s statements as evidence of his guilt, the Government’s reply
supports the source’s argument.
2.
Discussion
74.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
75.
In determining whether Mr. Zefzafi’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence for dealing 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
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
11
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.29
(a)
Category I
76.
The source claims that, if an arrest warrant was issued, the authorities did not produce
it when Mr. Zefzafi was arrested on 29 May 2017, in spite of the fact that the conditions for
an arrest in flagrante delicto had not been met. The Government states that Mr. Zefzafi’s
arrest was carried out in accordance with legal procedures and international standards.
77.
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.
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.
78.
On the basis of the information provided to it, the Working Group considers that,
although a warrant was issued, it was not presented to Mr. Zefzafi at the time of his arrest. It
notes that the Government did not state in its detailed reply that the warrant was shown to
Mr. Zefzafi. Furthermore, the source and the Government provide diametrically opposed
accounts of the notification given to Mr. Zefzafi of the reasons for his arrest. The Working
Group considers that it is not necessary to determine which version is correct since the
Government’s failure to address the question of whether the existing warrant was presented
indicates that a procedural violation occurred at the time of the arrest, and therefore a
violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the
Covenant.
79.
With regard to the question of incommunicado detention, the Working Group
considers this to be a factual matter linked to the question of whether an enforced
disappearance took place. The Government stated that a family member was informed of
Mr. Zefzafi’s transfer to Casablanca. Noting that the source admits that Mr. Zefzafi’s family
was informed of the transfer on the evening of his arrest, the Working Group is not in a
position to conclude that an enforced disappearance took place.
80.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi remained in police custody from 29 May to 5 June
2017 without being brought before a judge. According to the Government, on 5 June 2017,
Mr. Zefzafi was brought before the prosecutor’s office attached to the Casablanca Court of
Appeal, which requested that the investigating judge open an investigation. The Government
adds that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention was necessary in order for the investigations to be carried
out successfully.
81.
The Working Group reiterates that it must determine whether the deprivation of liberty
is in compliance with the relevant provisions of international law.30 Article 9 (3) of the
Covenant guarantees the right of anyone arrested to be brought promptly before a judge or
other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. Forty-eight hours is ordinarily
sufficient to meet this obligation.31
82.
In the present case, the Government has not explained why Mr. Zefzafi could not be
brought before a judge within 48 hours of his arrest. In failing to bring Mr. Zefzafi before a
judge for a week, the Government violated article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
83.
Consequently, the Working Group considers Mr. Zefzafi’s detention to be in violation
of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the
Covenant, and to be arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
84.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention results from the exercise of rights and
freedoms enshrined in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
29 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
30 See, for example, opinions No. 20/2018, No. 37/2018 and No. 50/2018.
31 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
12
GE.24-18736
articles 19, 21, 22 and 27 of the Covenant. The Government rejects these allegations,
claiming that Mr. Zefzafi was accused of acts prohibited by national law that did not fall
within the scope of the rights to freedom of expression, opinion or peaceful assembly.
85.
The Working Group notes that the key question is which of Mr. Zefzafi’s statements
or actions fall outside the scope of those protected by the right to freedom of expression and
opinion and justify his ongoing detention. According to the Government, Mr. Zefzafi was
arrested for participating in violent acts against State security forces and riots that resulted in
damage to property. However, the specific acts that the Government attributes to Mr. Zefzafi
do not in themselves constitute acts of violence or incitement to violence. While the
disruption of the sermon may have offended some people, there is no evidence that his words
incited violence. It should be recalled that restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression
must be compatible with article 19 (3) of the Covenant.32 Furthermore, while the Government
claims that Mr. Zefzafi called the authorities oppressive and threatened to harm them if they
did not leave, it does not demonstrate that such statements constitute a prohibited form of
expression. Furthermore, the claim that Mr. Zefzafi threatened to harm the security forces is
vague and does not describe any threat of physical harm specific enough to fall outside the
scope of speech protected by freedom of expression. The claim that Mr. Zefzafi’s calls for
peaceful action were in fact a coded call for violent action is insufficiently substantiated.
Therefore, the Working Group considers that Mr. Zefzafi was arrested on account of his
expressions and opinions rather than any violent action on his part, in violation of article 19
of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
86.
The source also claims that the articles of the Criminal Code on the basis of which
Mr. Zefzafi was convicted are vaguely worded and restrict his rights and freedoms. The
Government rejects these allegations.
87.
The Working Group considers that these articles, in particular the words “with the
intention of undermining their honour, their discretion or due respect for their authority”, are
broadly worded in essential respects and might be interpreted in such a way as to encompass
legitimate expressions and acts. The Working Group is concerned about the general way in
which these articles are worded, which may have allowed the authorities to misuse criminal
proceedings to suppress the exercise of Mr. Zefzafi’s rights, as indicated above.
88.
The source also claims that the acts of which Mr. Zefzafi is accused are protected by
the right to freedom of association. According to the source, the ruling cites as incriminating
evidence Mr. Zefzafi’s relations with the diaspora of the Rif, notably in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, a diaspora which the Government considers to be separatist. The source also
states that, in breach of article 27 of the Covenant, Mr. Zefzafi was arrested and convicted
for peacefully defending his right and that of the Amazigh community to have their own
culture and to use their language and flag. According to the Government, Mr. Zefzafi was
arrested and convicted for criminal acts that have been proved both at first instance and on
appeal.
89.
On the basis of the above information, the Working Group concludes that
Mr. Zefzafi’s detention is also linked to his participation in demonstrations against
government policies. The Government has not shown that Mr. Zefzafi committed or incited
any violent acts. His detention is therefore in violation of article 21 of the Covenant and
article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which protect freedom of peaceful
assembly. Furthermore, given that Mr. Zefzafi is accused of having had contact with
members of the Rif diaspora, the Working Group considers that he is also detained for
exercising his right to freedom of association guaranteed by article 22 of the Covenant and
article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group notes that
Mr. Zefzafi was also criticized for waving Amazigh flags and the Rif flag. In the light of all
the information submitted to it, the Working Group considers that he was detained because
he campaigned for the rights of the Amazigh people, in violation of article 27 of the Covenant
and article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
32 Human Rights Council resolution 12/16, para. 5 (p).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
13
90.
Consequently, the Working Group considers Mr. Zefzafi’s detention to be in violation
of articles 19, 21, 22 et 27 of the Covenant and articles 19, 20 and 27 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and to be arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
91.
Given its finding that Mr. Zefzafi’s detention was arbitrary under category II, the
Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. Mr Zefzafi was sentenced
to 20 years’ imprisonment.
92.
According to the source, Mr. Zefzafi was questioned without a lawyer being present.
The Government does not address this allegation directly but highlights his frequent contacts
with lawyers from 3 June 2017.
93.
Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant provides that everyone charged with a criminal
offence has the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence
and to communicate with counsel of his or her own choosing. Article 14 (3) (d) guarantees
everyone’s right to defend himself or herself in person, through legal assistance of his or her
own choosing or through court-appointed counsel.33
94.
In the present case, Mr. Zefzafi was denied access to a lawyer from the time of his
arrest on 29 May 2017 until 3 June 2017, during which time he was questioned. In the absence
of a reply from the Government on this point,34 the Working Group considers that the source
has presented credible allegations that demonstrate a violation of article 14 of the Covenant
and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group is
concerned about the fact that national law does not provide for the right to a lawyer during
police custody, which is contrary to the guarantees set out in article 14 of the Covenant.35
95.
According to the source, Mr. Zefzafi was not allowed to see his family until 12 June
2017. The Government claims that he was allowed to call his family after they were informed
of his arrest and transfer to Casablanca. The Working Group notes that the Government does
not explain why Mr. Zefzafi was not allowed to see his family for almost two weeks after he
was authorized to call them. It considers that Mr. Zefzafi’s lack of contact with his family,
aside from one call, aggravated his situation, which involved being held without contact with
a lawyer from the time of his arrest until 3 June 2017. If a detained person’s contact with his
or her family is restricted, it may have an impact on that person’s right to a fair trial. The
Working Group therefore considers that these restrictions have aggravated the violation of
Mr. Zefzafi’s right to a fair trial, guaranteed by article 14 of the Covenant and article 11 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
96.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi was subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The
Government contests the validity of these allegations, which it considers to be neither detailed
nor substantiated.
97.
The Working Group notes that the Government provided a detailed medical report
dated 8 June 2017. The report noted that Mr. Zefzafi’s body had suffered a number of injuries,
indicating acts of violence that had occurred some 10 days previously, that is, on the date on
which he was arrested. While the Government acknowledges that Mr. Zefzafi was injured
during his arrest, the source claims that he was also beaten during police questioning and
later in detention. Noting the seriousness of the allegations made by the source, and the fact
that some of the treatment concerned is alleged to have taken place after the issuance of the
medical report, the Working Group considers that the Government has not explained what
steps were taken to investigate the veracity of the allegations and to ensure that no
information obtained through ill-treatment or torture was used in the prosecution. The
Working Group recalls that the use of evidence obtained through torture is prohibited by
article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, and undermines the fundamental principles of a fair trial when it
33 Human Rights Committee, general comment no. 35 (2014), paras. 34 and 35.
34 Although the Government claims that an examination took place on 5 June 2017, the source claims
that Mr. Zefzafi was intensively questioned while in police custody from 29 May 2017 onwards. The
Government does not specifically deny that Mr. Zefzafi was questioned while in police custody.
35 CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 9.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
14
GE.24-18736
may compromise a person’s ability to defend himself.36 The same Convention establishes the
obligation to promptly investigate alleged violations and bring the perpetrators to justice.37
The Working Group therefore concludes that there has been a violation of article 14 of the
Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
98.
The source also claims that Mr. Zefzafi was convicted following a mass trial, in
violation of his right to a fair trial. According to the Government, all the persons involved in
the case received individual assessments of their criminal responsibility. The Government
adds that the trial respected all the fair trial guarantees, in accordance with national and
international law.
99.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the
Covenant enshrine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Mass trial procedures entail
a risk of violating international human rights law, including the right to a fair trial and the
presumption of innocence.38
100.
The Working Group notes that the Government has provided detailed information on
Mr. Zefzafi’s alleged role in the offences with which the defendants were charged in the mass
trial. Mr. Zefzafi’s specific situation appears to have received particular attention, including
a hearing of his account of the events, held over several sessions, and an examination of his
defence team’s requests. Accordingly, the Working Group does not consider itself in a
position to conclude that the collective nature of the proceedings constituted in itself, or
resulted in, a violation of Mr. Zefzafi’s right to a fair trial.
101.
The source claims that the authorities violated the principle of equality of arms when
four defence lawyers were denied access to evidence presented by the prosecution at first
instance. The Government claims that all the documents that were in the case file and
referenced were extracted by the investigating judge and that telephone calls, video
recordings and photos were presented to the defendants.
102.
The Working Group considers that the source has demonstrated that the lawyers were
not given sufficient timely access to enable them to prepare effectively for the trial, in
violation of Mr. Zefzafi’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant
and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
103.
The source points out that the court refused to hear the testimony of more than
50 defence witnesses. The Government claims that the judge granted the requests to call the
witnesses whom the parties to the trial had the opportunity to examine and that the other
witnesses had nothing to do with the acts of which he was accused.
104.
The Working Group considers that differences in the number of witnesses do not
automatically demonstrate an inequality of arms, and that this is a question that should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, it considers that it has not been
demonstrated that the authorities violated Mr. Zefzafi’s rights under article 14 (3) of the
Covenant.
105.
The source points out that, during the trial hearings, the defendants were placed in
glass docks with high walls. The Government affirms that the courtroom was equipped with
a transparent glass room designed solely to receive and seat the defendants. It adds that none
of the defendants were handcuffed until they appeared in court and their examination began.
Bearing in mind the Government’s detailed and justified explanations concerning the use of
glass rooms, the Working Group is not able to conclude that there has been a violation in this
respect.
106.
The source states that, given the high number of charges and defendants, the court of
appeal was unable to examine the responsibility of each defendant in a fair and individualized
manner within a time frame of four months. The Government explains that several defendants
refused to take part in the appeal hearings but that the court ensured that they received the
36 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 78; No. 26/2019, para. 104; and No. 56/2019, para. 88.
37 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
art. 12. See also opinion No. 66/2022, para. 99.
38 Opinions No. 65/2019, para. 75; and No. 9/2023, para. 89.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
GE.24-18736
15
necessary information and that the defendants present were able to make concluding
statements.
107.
The Working Group notes the detailed information provided by the Government on
the measures taken to ensure that the defendants had sufficient time and facilities to present
their defence and that the court addressed their claims in detail. Consequently, the Working
Group does not consider that it has sufficient information to conclude that a four-month
period was insufficient to examine each case individually.
108.
Lastly, the source argues that the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment handed down to
Mr. Zefzafi for acts which it considers to fall within the scope of his rights is disproportionate
and that his detention is therefore arbitrary. The Government notes that the court sentenced
Mr. Zefzafi to the lightest penalty that was legally permissible.
109.
While the Working Group does not generally examine the length of sentences, which
is a matter for national courts, it is concerned about the lengthy sentence handed down to
Mr. Zefzafi, particularly in view of its conclusions under category II. The Working Group
notes that such a sentence exacerbates the violation of Mr. Zefzafi’s rights under category II
and may have a chilling effect on other persons seeking to exercise their rights under
international law.39
110.
In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of
Mr. Zefzafi’s right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give his detention an arbitrary
character under category III.
(d)
Category V
111.
The source claims that Mr. Zefzafi was arrested and convicted because he is a member
of the Amazigh community and because of his political views, his role as leader of the Hirak
Rif protests, and his criticism of and opposition to the Government. The Government rejects
these allegations, denies that there is any link between his arrest and his ethnicity, and affirms
that any citizen involved in the commission of an offence, irrespective of its nature, is subject
to the same legal proceedings and measures in force, without discrimination.
112.
In this case, the Working Group considers that Mr. Zefzafi’s deprivation of liberty is
not an isolated act and is part of a pattern of him being targeted because of his identity and
activism. The Working Group has already concluded that Morocco arbitrarily detained
another supporter of Hirak, for reasons relating to freedom of expression and association,40
among other reasons.
113.
The Working Group concludes that Mr. Zefzafi’s deprivation of liberty is in breach
of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of
the Covenant and is therefore arbitrary under category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
114.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations concerning Mr. Zefzafi’s
conditions of detention. It takes this opportunity to remind the Government of its obligations
under article 10 of the Covenant to treat all detained persons with humanity and respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person, as well as rules 12–27 and 58 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) relating
to conditions of detention, medical care and prisoners’ contact with the outside world.
3.
Disposition
115.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Nasser Zefzafi, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 7, 9–11, 19, 20 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
39 Opinions No. 9/2017, para. 33; and No. 27/2023, para. 106.
40 See opinion No. 69/2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/43
16
GE.24-18736
articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
116.
The Working Group requests the Government of Morocco to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Zefzafi 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.
117.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Zefzafi immediately and accord him an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
118.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Zefzafi and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
119.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
120.
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. Zefzafi has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Zefzafi;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Zefzafi’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Morocco with its international obligations, in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
121.
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.
122.
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.
123.
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.41
[Adopted on 30 August 2024]
41 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.