A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12

GE.25-06173 (E) 230525 260525 Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025 Opinion No. 12/2025 concerning Adil Sibih (Türkiye) 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a three-year period in its resolution 51/8. 2. In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 4 December 2024 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Türkiye a communication concerning Adil Sibih. The Government replied to the communication on 3 February 2025. 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/2025/12 General Assembly Distr.: General 26 May 2025 Original: English A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 2 GE.25-06173 1. Submissions (a) Communication from the source 4. Adil Sibih, born in 2000, is a Syrian refugee who was issued a temporary protection card by the Ministry of the Interior of Türkiye. At the time of his arrest and detention, Mr. Sibih resided in the city of Kayseri in Türkiye and was working in the manufacturing sector. (i) Context 5. As a result of the conflict that began in 2011, Türkiye is host to over 3.6 million refugees from the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as about 400,000 refugees and asylum-seekers from other countries. Türkiye has thus enacted migration laws and regulations, set up a new asylum system and a new civilian agency (the Directorate General for Migration Management), built camps along its southern border and granted Syrians access to schools and hospitals. 6. The source submits that domestic law requires refugees from the Syrian Arab Republic to register with the authorities, obtain a Turkish identification document (kimlik, or “temporary protection” identification card) and reside in their province of registration. It is noted that these policies should in theory be unrelated to a risk of deportation to the Syrian Arab Republic. 7. The source further recalls that the principle of non-refoulement prohibits States from sending anyone to a place where they would be at a real risk of serious human rights violations, such as torture or persecution. This principle is enshrined in numerous international human rights instruments as well as in Turkish law, and additionally forms part of customary international law. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has reportedly urged all States to refrain from engaging in any deportations to the Syrian Arab Republic. 8. The source notes that the authorities in Türkiye state that any returns to the Syrian Arab Republic occur on a voluntary basis. However, officials of the Directorate General for Migration Management have reportedly admitted privately to deporting Syrians. 9. In this regard, the source notes that the national law does not specify the procedure by which voluntariness is assessed, but the one point of commonality for all returns – whether forced or genuinely voluntary, and whether the return process begins in a police station or in a detention centre of the Directorate General for Migration Management – appears to be the signing of a “voluntary return” form. Prior to the signing of this document, it is unclear how often a “voluntary return” interview takes place. Neither is it clear how often UNHCR and/or other independent organizations are present during such interviews to verify that people are giving their free and informed consent to return to the Syrian Arab Republic. 10. The source submits that for many cases of refoulement to the Syrian Arab Republic, the process is disguised as a “voluntary return,” and indeed, in the present case, no formal deportation decision appears to have been issued. In theory, national law grants refugees and asylum-seekers 15 days to challenge the decision. 11. The source also notes that although an appeal should suspend deportation, amendments to the law made in October 2016 had the effect of not suspending deportations upon appeal when the case raised certain issues, including “public order” and “public security”. (ii) Arrest, sentencing and detention 12. The source submits that on 19 September 2024, Mr. Sibih was at his home, together with his family members. At 6.30 a.m., three uniformed police officers from the police anti-terror unit entered his home. The officials mentioned that there was an arrest warrant issued against Mr. Sibih, but failed to present it. The officers also conducted a house search in the absence of a search warrant. Mr. Sibih was then taken from his home to the police station for interrogation. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 GE.25-06173 3 13. On 19 September 2024, Mr. Sibih was questioned by the Kayseri anti-terror unit at the police station. There, he was interrogated on charges of being a member of the terrorist organization Da’esh, in the absence of a lawyer. 14. On the following day, 20 September 2024, Mr. Sibih was transferred from the police station to the Kayseri Removal Centre, where he was visited by a lawyer and met with officials of that centre. 15. The Immigration Office of Kayseri, which comes under the Ministry of the Interior, had issued an administrative detention decision against Mr. Sibih in accordance with article 4 of Law No. 757 and articles 54 and 57 of Law No. 6458. That decision was reportedly justified, as all the grounds for administrative detention were met due to the risk of escape and leaving the country. 16. The source notes that this decision was issued on 19 September 2024, the same day that Mr. Sibih was taken to the police station for interrogation. Mr. Sibih was notified of this decision. On 20 September 2024, he was notified about the deportation order issued against him. 17. On 23 September 2024, Mr. Sibih’s lawyer filed a petition with the First Kayseri Peace Penal Court to annul the administrative detention decision. The source notes that an appeal to the Peace Penal Court is the only domestic remedy available in such cases. 18. On 3 October 2024, the First Kayseri Peace Penal Court rejected Mr. Sibih’s appeal, with no further opportunity for him to challenge the decision through domestic court processes. The source therefore submits that the available remedies have not been effective. 19. The source notes that after the administrative detention and deportation order were issued against Mr. Sibih, his appeal was submitted to the Peace Penal Court for annulment of the administrative detention decision. That process, however, does not include a trial process. 20. Mr. Sibih’s lawyer also filed a petition with the administrative court for annulment of the deportation decision, with a request for a trial to be held. However, the administrative court has not responded to the request. Hence, the source notes that Mr. Sibih has been waiting to see the judge since the first day of the deprivation of his liberty. 21. The source notes that Mr. Sibih was allowed to meet a lawyer of his own choosing, and was also granted the right to consult his lawyer and have a meeting in private. 22. The source submits that Mr. Sibih is currently being held in detention at the Kayseri Removal Centre. He has been attacked by other detainees, sustaining injuries to his face and shoulder. Despite this, Mr. Sibih is still being held in the same facility as his attackers. Following the attack, Mr. Sibih’s lawyer visited him at the removal centre and noted that his client had not been provided with a doctor or a medical examination. The doctor at the removal centre had reportedly refused to prepare a medical report on this incident. (iii) Legal analysis 23. The source recalls that article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that “anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. Article 9 (1) states that a warrant establishes a legal basis for the arrest. Moreover, the source recalls that the Working Group has previously stated that when local authorities fail to arrest and detain a person in accordance with international standards, the arrest and detention are unlawful.2 24. In this regard, the source notes that Mr. Sibih was neither shown an arrest warrant nor informed of the grounds for his arrest at the time of his arrest on 19 September 2024. As a result, the authorities have failed to meet the standards of due process of law. The source thus concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Sibih has no legal basis, rendering his detention arbitrary under category I. 2 See opinion No. 52/2018. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 4 GE.25-06173 25. The source submits that article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 (1) of the Covenant provide for the right to freedom of opinion. The source notes that a State violates its obligations under article 19 (1) of the Covenant if it harasses, intimidates or unlawfully detains an individual for holding a particular opinion. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 (2) of the Covenant explicitly protect the right to express one’s thoughts and opinions. 26. The source submits that despite these protections under international law, the authorities arbitrarily detained Mr. Sibih, allegedly on fabricated charges, for exercising his right to freedom of expression. Mr. Sibih had been arrested on the grounds of being a member of an armed terrorist organization. The justification or evidence presented by the authorities to that effect is that he had joined a WhatsApp group where he allegedly made propaganda for that organization. 27. In this regard, the source notes that Mr. Sibih stated during his interrogation at the police station that it was a member of his family who had added him to that WhatsApp group and that religious and prayer texts were shared in the group. He had later deleted the group. He denies being a member of the aforesaid terrorist organization and he does not see it as a religious group or as a representative of Islam. 28. The source recalls that in its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Human Rights Committee explicitly stated that “the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised ‘either individually or in community with others and in public or private’”. 29. The source submits that article 19 (2) of the Covenant provides that “everyone shall have the right of freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. The Human Rights Committee has explicitly stated that religious discourse is protected under the right to freedom of expression. 3 The source submits that the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has noted that freedom of expression is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of the freedoms of thought, conscience, and religion or belief.4 30. The source notes that Mr. Sibih was arrested for his participation in a messaging group engaged in sharing and discussing religious content, religious texts and theological writings. The source submits that the activity for which Mr. Sibih is currently detained relates to both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression. According to the source, this activity falls within the scope of freedom of religion as his messages amount to the sharing of religious information on Islam, and his actions fall within the scope of freedom of expression as he used a messaging app to share ideas with others on religion. 31. The source notes that freedom of expression is not an absolute right under the Covenant and may be subject to limited restrictions in certain circumstances. Under article 19 (3) of the Covenant, such restrictions must be provided by law and must be necessary either to respect the rights and reputations of others or for the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the limited provisions of article 19 (3) of the Covenant narrowly, noting that the Government must meet a “strict test of justification” and that any limitation must not jeopardize the right itself.5 32. The source submits that Mr. Sibih’s deprivation of liberty does not fall within the narrow exceptions of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. As such, it submits that the continued detention of Mr. Sibih is a violation of article 19 (2) of the Covenant because it is the result of his peaceful free expression. 33. The source recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category III of the Working Group when it violates due process or one of the tenets of the right to a fair trial. The minimum international standards of due process are established in the Covenant, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All 3 See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11. 4 A/HRC/40/58, para. 14. 5 Velichkin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/85/D/1022/2001). A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 GE.25-06173 5 Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). 34. Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power”. The Human Rights Committee has found that the Covenant requires that criminal defendants be “entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”.6 Although the Human Rights Committee has recognized that the reasonableness of trial delays must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, the Government is obliged to provide justification for delaying a trial, particularly in cases where the defendant is held in pretrial detention.7 35. The source submits that Mr. Sibih’s legal counsel, in his petition to the Administrative Court, requested to have a trial so that his client could express himself in person. However, the Administrative Court has not yet decided to have such a trial. Therefore, the source submits that the right of Mr. Sibih under article 9 (3) of the Covenant has been breached. 36. The source further submits that every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as provided under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and rules 25 and 27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. It stresses that this right extends not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also to underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food, water and sanitation. 37. The source recalls that Mr. Sibih was attacked by other inmates at the Kayseri Removal Centre and that the doctor at the centre refused to carry out a medical examination of Mr. Sibih and to prepare a medical report on his state of health. 38. Finally, in relation to category V, the source submits that the arrest of Mr. Sibih is arbitrary because it follows discrimination against him on the basis of political or other opinion. The source argues that Mr. Sibih was arrested on the basis of his nationality, due to his status as a refugee and for political reasons. 39. The source concludes that the arrest and detention of Mr. Sibih are arbitrary and violate the obligations of Türkiye under the Covenant, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the Nelson Mandela Rules. (b) Response from the Government 40. On 4 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government of Türkiye under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide it, by 3 February 2025, with detailed information about Mr. Sibih, and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as well as their compatibility with the obligations of the Government of Türkiye under international human rights law and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working Group calls upon the Government to ensure Mr. Sibih’s physical and mental integrity. 41. On 3 February 2025, the Government submitted its response, confirming that the Kayseri Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated two different prosecutions (No. 2024/42704 and No. 2024/57479) against Mr. Sibih on grounds of “membership of an armed terrorist organization” and that the Kayseri Second Criminal Judgeship of Peace rendered a decision (No. 2024/7754) on 18 September 2024 within the framework of these investigations. 42. Following the actions taken by the judicial authorities, the Kayseri Provincial Security Directorate assessed that Mr. Sibih’s stay in Türkiye posed a threat to public order and national security. Following this assessment, a deportation decision was taken, on 19 September 2024, pursuant to article 54/1 (b)–(d) of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, and Mr. Sibih was placed in administrative detention at the Kayseri 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 37. 7 Ibid. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 6 GE.25-06173 Removal Centre. He filed a lawsuit before the Kayseri First Administrative Court against the said deportation decision. The case is still pending. 43. Regarding the allegations of Mr. Sibih being attacked by other detainees, the Government stated that according to the minutes prepared on 1 November 2024 by the administration of the removal centre, Mr. Sibih was wounded after sustaining a hit to his nose while trying to break up a fight that had emerged between two groups of which he was not a member. The Government notes that Mr. Sibih stated to officials that he would not file a complaint regarding the incident as the attack had not been directed against him. 44. The Government maintains that after the incident, Mr. Sibih was immediately taken to the institution’s doctor. Having examined the wound on the nose, the doctor explained to Mr. Sibih that he needed to undergo a surgical operation which could leave a permanent scar on his face. However, Mr. Sibih did not give consent for such an operation. 45. The Government concluded by requesting the Working Group to dismiss the application, asserting that the allegations were unfounded. (c) Further comments from the source 46. The Government’s reply was sent to the source for further comments on 3 February 2025, which the source submitted on 17 February 2025. In its further comments, the source asserts that the Government failed to demonstrate its compliance with article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, as Mr. Sibih was not informed about the charges against him or presented with an arrest warrant. 47. The source also notes that the Government failed to prove how the applicant’s joining of a WhatsApp group could be regarded as an offence of being a member of a terrorist organization and a propagandist for the Da’esh terrorist organization. Additionally, when the applicant refuted those allegations in a domestic court, the Kayseri Public Prosecutor decided, in decision No. 2014/39487, that the actions of the applicant could not be categorized as membership of a terrorist organization. 48. Finally, in relation to category III, the source asserts that the Government failed to demonstrate its compliance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant. Even though Mr. Sibih lodged a request for a trial to be held, in his presence, the domestic court has not yet responded concerning his trial date. Furthermore, the Government failed to demonstrate compliance with rules 25 and 27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The source reiterates its earlier submission, noting that no medical report relating to the examination referred to by the Government has been presented. 2. Discussion 49. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. 50. In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Sibih is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case for breach of international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.8 51. As a preliminary matter, the Working Group notes that Mr. Sibih’s situation falls partially within the scope of the derogations that Türkiye made under the Covenant. On 21 July 2016, the Government of Türkiye informed the Secretary-General that it had declared a state of emergency for three months in response to severe dangers to public security and order, which amounted to a threat to the life of the nation within the meaning of article 4 of the Covenant. 52. While acknowledging the notification concerning the derogations, the Working Group emphasizes that, in the discharge of its mandate, it is empowered under paragraph 7 of its methods of work to refer to the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal 8 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 GE.25-06173 7 Declaration of Human Rights and to customary international law. Moreover, in the present case, articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant are the provisions that are relevant to the alleged arbitrary detention of Mr. Sibih. As the Human Rights Committee has stated, States Parties derogating from articles 9 and 14 must ensure that such derogations do not exceed those strictly required by the exigencies of the actual situation. The Working Group welcomes the lifting of the state of emergency on 19 July 2018 and the subsequent revocation of derogations by Türkiye. 53. The source has argued that the detention of Mr. Sibih is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V. The Working Group will proceed to examine these accordingly. It notes, however, that Mr. Sibih is not subject to criminal proceedings with associated charges, but rather to an administrative detention pursuant to a deportation order. Consequently, the Working Group will examine the procedural guarantees applicable to his situation not under category III, which pertains to the right to a fair trial in criminal matters, but under category IV, which specifically addresses cases of asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees subjected to administrative custody. (a) Category I 54. The Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law which may authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.9 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).10 The right to be presented with an arrest warrant is inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and in the prohibition of arbitrary detention, under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.11 55. According to the source, Mr. Sibih was arrested without being shown an arrest warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. The source also alleges that the police conducted a house search without a search warrant. In its response, the Government has not contested these allegations, despite having the opportunity to do so. This indicates non-compliance with domestic legal procedures and constitutes a violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 56. Moreover, the Working Group notes with concern that, according to the source, Mr. Sibih has been waiting to see a judge since the first day of his deprivation of liberty, as the administrative court has not responded to his lawyer’s request. This was not disproved by the Government. The Working Group recalls that the right to challenge the lawfulness of one’s detention before a court (habeas corpus), as enshrined in article 9 (4) of the Covenant, is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and must be available in practice to all detainees, regardless of the legal basis for their detention. 57. The Working Group also notes with concern the allegation that Mr. Sibih was interrogated on charges of being a member of a terrorist organization in the absence of a lawyer. This allegation has not been refuted by the Government in its reply and represents a serious violation of Mr. Sibih’s right to legal assistance from the earliest stages of criminal proceedings. 58. Furthermore, in the light of the facts submitted by the source and insufficiently addressed by the Government, the Working Group finds that Mr. Sibih’s detention lacks a sufficient legal basis that would meet international standards. The Government has not 9 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46. 10 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available. 11 The Working Group has maintained from its early years that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. See decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 3/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 4/1993, para. 6; No. 5/1993, paras. 6, 8 and 9; No. 27/1993, para. 6; No. 30/1993, paras. 14 and 17 (a); No. 36/1993, para. 8; No. 43/1993, para. 6; and No. 44/1993, paras. 6 and 7. For more recent jurisprudence, see opinions No. 66/2019, para. 61; No. 6/2020, para. 40; No. 11/2020, para. 38; No. 13/2020, para. 47; No. 14/2020, para. 50; and No. 89/2020. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 8 GE.25-06173 substantiated how mere participation in a WhatsApp group satisfies the objective criteria required under international law, particularly when Mr. Sibih maintains that the group only shared religious and prayer texts. 59. The Working Group recalls that detention under international law requires objective factors that connect an individual to actual criminal activity, not merely to protected expressive or religious conduct. In Mr. Sibih’s case, the authorities have conflated his alleged participation in a WhatsApp group with support for or membership in an armed terrorist organization, without presenting evidence that would objectively link his activities to terrorist operations or genuine security threats. The Working Group has previously established that detention based on vague allegations that lack specific evidence is arbitrary under category I.12 The pretextual use of broad national security provisions to restrict religious discourse or online communications is particularly concerning, as it undermines both freedom of expression and freedom of religion. 60. The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Sibih’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, falling under category I. (b) Category II 61. The source submits that Mr. Sibih was arrested for his participation in a messaging group engaged in sharing and discussing religious content, religious texts and theological writings. The source contends that this activity falls within the scope of both freedom of religion and freedom of expression, as his messages amounted to sharing religious information on Islam, and his actions fell within the scope of freedom of expression as he used a messaging app to share ideas with others on religion. 62. In its reply, the Government has not provided any explanation as to how Mr. Sibih’s alleged activities pose a threat to national security, public order, or public health or morals, or how they infringe on the rights or reputations of others, which might justify restricting his rights under article 19 (3) of the Covenant. 63. The Working Group recalls that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights protected under articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the corresponding articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant. As the Human Rights Committee noted in its general comment No. 22 (1993), the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised “either individually or in community with others and in public or private”13 and religious discourse is protected under the right to freedom of expression.14 64. The Working Group has previously found in similar cases that detention based solely on exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and of religion, without evidence of incitement to violence or other legitimate grounds for restriction, is arbitrary.15 In the present case, no evidence has been presented to show that Mr. Sibih’s participation in the WhatsApp group involved promoting violence or terrorist activities. The Government has merely asserted that he poses a threat to public order and security without substantiating this claim. 65. In the absence of any sufficient submissions to the contrary, the Working Group finds that Mr. Sibih’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of religion and expression guaranteed under international law, and is therefore arbitrary, falling under category II. (c) Category IV 66. The Working Group notes that Mr. Sibih is a Syrian refugee with temporary protection status in Türkiye who has been placed in administrative detention pending deportation to the Syrian Arab Republic. This situation clearly falls under category IV, which addresses cases 12 See opinions No. 8/2017 and No. 15/2017. 13 See para. 4. 14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 4. 15 See opinion No. 10/2020. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 GE.25-06173 9 where “asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy”.16 67. According to the source, since his initial detention on 19 September 2024, Mr. Sibih has not had an effective opportunity to challenge his detention before a court. Although his lawyer filed a petition with the First Kayseri Peace Penal Court to annul the administrative detention decision, that appeal was rejected on 3 October 2024, with no further opportunity to challenge the decision through the domestic court process. The lawyer’s petition to the administrative court to annul the deportation decision has reportedly received no response. Consequently, Mr. Sibih has been deprived of liberty for an extended period without effective recourse to judicial review. 68. The Working Group recalls that in a previous annual report,17 it reminded States that detention of asylum-seekers, refugees and immigrants in an irregular situation should be the last resort and permissible only for the shortest period of time, and that alternatives to detention should be sought whenever possible. In its revised deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants,18 the Working Group clearly stated that administrative custody of immigrants and asylum-seekers may in no case be unlimited or of excessive length, and that a maximum period should be set by law. 69. The Working Group further observes that the attempted deportation of Mr. Sibih to the Syrian Arab Republic would constitute a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. According to the deportation order, Mr. Sibih’s deportation would be to the Syrian Arab Republic, “his country of origin”, or to Ecuador “if he volunteered to do so”. Given the well-documented and still ongoing conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, the deportation of any individual to the Syrian Arab Republic runs counter to the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened. 70. The Working Group is particularly concerned by the lack of an individualized assessment in Mr. Sibih’s case. The principle of proportionality requires that detention be used as a last resort and, in such cases, that strict legal limitations and effective judicial guarantees be established.19 However, according to the source, the detention order was issued on the basis of generalized assertions that Mr. Sibih posed a threat to public order and security, without specific evidence connecting him to terrorist activities beyond his alleged participation in a WhatsApp group. 71. As stated in the Working Group’s revised deliberation No. 5, there may be instances where the obstacle to identifying or removing persons in an irregular situation from the territory is not attributable to them, including the principle of non-refoulement, which renders expulsion impossible. In such cases, the detainee must be released to avoid potentially indefinite detention from occurring, which would be arbitrary. 72. The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Sibih has been subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of effective administrative or judicial review or remedy, and that his detention with a view to deportation is arbitrary and falls within category IV. (d) Category V 73. The Working Group will now examine the source’s allegation that Mr. Sibih’s detention constitutes discrimination under category V, since it constitutes discrimination on the basis of political or other opinion, as well as due to his nationality and his status as a refugee. The Working Group has already found that his detention is arbitrary under category II. When a detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other views. 16 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8 (d). 17 A/HRC/10/21, para. 67. 18 A/HRC/39/45, annex. 19 A/HRC/10/21, para. 67. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 10 GE.25-06173 74. The Working Group observes that Mr. Sibih’s detention appears to be based primarily on his alleged participation in a WhatsApp group that supposedly shared content supporting an armed terrorist organization. According to the source, however, this group merely shared religious and prayer texts, and Mr. Sibih rejected any connection to this armed terrorist organization, stating that he does not view it as a religious group or as representative of Islam. The Government has provided no evidence of specific criminal acts committed by Mr. Sibih beyond the general assertion that he poses “a threat to the security of the country” and would “disrupt public order and public security”. 75. Without specific information about the factual basis for these determinations, the Working Group cannot conclude that Mr. Sibih’s detention was based on legitimate security concerns rather than discrimination based on his national origin and religious expression. The Working Group notes in this respect the source’s allegation, not sufficiently refuted by the Government in its reply, that Mr. Sibih’s Syrian nationality appears to have heightened suspicion against him, reflecting a pattern of discriminatory treatment of Syrian nationals in security-related matters. 76. The Working Group therefore finds that Mr. Sibih’s deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on his national origin, refugee status, and political or religious opinion, in violation of articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, falling under category V. 3. Disposition 77. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Adil Sibih, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 18, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, IV and V. 78. The Working Group requests the Government of Türkiye to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Sibih without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 79. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Sibih immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. 80. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Sibih and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights. 81. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible. 4. Follow-up procedure 82. 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. Sibih has been released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Sibih; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Sibih’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 Türkiye with its international obligations in line with the present opinion; A/HRC/WGAD/2025/12 GE.25-06173 11 (e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion. 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. 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.20 [Adopted on 2 April 2025] 20 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.