A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13

GE.25-07433 (E) 170925 180925 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. 13/2025 concerning 37 inhabitants of Annobón (Equatorial Guinea) 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 16 December 2024 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Equatorial Guinea a communication concerning 37 individuals from Annobón. The Government replied to the communication on 13 March

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/2025/13 General Assembly Distr.: General 24 June 2025 English Original: Spanish A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 2 GE.25-07433 1. Submissions (a) Communication from the source 4. The communication concerns the following 37 individuals, all of whom are from Annobón: (a) Sergio Mena Pueyo, born on 9 September 1985; (b) Darío Malest Laurel, born on 1 January 1970; (c) Enrique Malest Laurel, born on 9 January 1955; (d) Norberto Piño Orense, born on 11 February 1972; (e) Diógenes (Saolin) Nena Malest, born on 3 August 1993; (f) Sergio Liso Sisa, born on 13 September 1965; (g) Roberto Andreu Mejía, born on 15 June 1953; (h) Elvira Majeda Estrada, born on 29 October 1964; (i) Víctor Bestué Marquez, born on 2 November 1958; (j) Reginaldo Llorente Yaye, born on 27 August 1957; (k) Marcos Pidal Codina, born on 21 May 1956; (l) Brígida Teruel Mandra, born on 12 January 1971; (m) Leonardo Zamora Mum, born on 6 April 1965; (n) Eloy Domingo Castaño, born on 1 September 1951; (o) Gabino Sabadel Mum, born on 17 September 1953; (p) Ricardo Trillo Mol, born on 11 November 1954; (q) Gumersindo Nach Rosario; (r) Vladimir Bestué Trillo, born on 3 October 1995; (s) Daniel Castellón Alicante, born on 29 September 1974; (t) Marcelino Ronda Pueyo, born on 27 March 1986; (u) Leonardo Malest Laurel, born on 10 January 1970; (v) Evaristo Yaye Mabanja, born on 17 May 1953; (w) Francisco Ballovera Estrada, born on 17 August 1980; (x) Santiago Campañet Segorbe, born on 19 October 1968; (y) Cipriano Panadés García, born on 3 November 1970; (z) Fabián Garriga Mum, born on 19 May 1975; (aa) Wenceslao (Yábala) Teruel Simpampa, born on 28 October 1981; (bb) Ceferino Cartagena Tomé, born on 17 September 1983; (cc) Dimas Montero Murcia, born on 19 August 1982; (dd) Estrella Alfaro Aracil, born on 19 July 1974; (ee) Luis María Montero Santander, born on 8 May 1991; (ff) Basilio Salas Marquéz, born on 15 June 1984; (gg) Guillermina Estrada Ballovera, born on 1 November 1979; (hh) Bienvenido Ballovera Mum, born on 2 May 1979; (ii) José Antonio Merimo Castaño, born on 3 September 1970; A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 3 (jj) Diosdado Ballovera Mum, born on 27 November 1971; (kk) Alejandro Sagunto Pole, born on 13 November 1949. (i) Context 5. The source states that the island of Annobón, which is 670 km from Malabo, has different ethnic, linguistic and cultural characteristics from the rest of Equatorial Guinea. When the country gained independence in 1968, Annobón was incorporated into the new State with no degree of autonomy or self-governance. Its inhabitants have repeatedly drawn attention to serious rights violations committed by the national authorities. 6. The Government is said to have signed numerous agreements with foreign countries to enable them to move their waste, including radioactive waste, to Annobón, which has led to the island being used as an international dumping ground.2 7. According to the source, the United Nations has issued numerous reports detailing the multiple and systematic human rights violations in the country.3 The source claims that the rights of the political opposition in the country are being arbitrarily and disproportionately violated, including through arbitrary detention and torture. 8. The inhabitants of Annobón have repeatedly denounced the abandonment of their island by the authorities. In the island’s capital, San Antonio de Palé, electricity is available for just six hours per day and only in the military camp and the areas surrounding it. In addition, while a pledge to supply drinking water was made in 2011 as part of a project with a private company, that supply remains scarce and irregular and is sometimes contaminated. 9. Annobón has a permanent military detachment to oversee the island and guarantee its sovereignty. Instead of protecting the population, the soldiers have been used to repress the people of Annobón, resulting in multiple complaints from local residents. 10. Contracts for the development of the island’s infrastructure are not fulfilled, and the assigned funds are often diverted through corruption schemes. 11. Since 2008, there has been an intensification of the activities in Annobón of a private company (a commercial company that is mostly foreign-owned but has significant ties to the Government of Equatorial Guinea) that has been awarded government contracts for practically all the projects carried out on the island. The source claims that the projects in question remain unfinished. 12. When carrying out these projects, the private company has used its status as a developer to exploit the mineral resources in Annobón by opening quarries without any type of environmental regulation and using blasting as the main method of extraction. 13. On 17 July 2024, in the presence of the local authorities, the inhabitants of Annobón drafted and signed a manifesto entitled “Voice of the people of Annobón on the use of dynamite”, in which they called for a halt to the explosions and detonations across the island. These explosions and detonations are linked to the work undertaken by the private company since 2008 to extract aggregate and other mineral resources. The manifesto was drafted in follow-up to a letter, dated 9 July 2024, which set out similar demands. 14. The authorities in Malabo and Bata arrested individuals from Annobón who had peacefully demonstrated against the explosions. These arrests were accompanied by the militarization of Annobón, which involved the deployment of a military contingent from Malabo, leading to the intimidation and abuse of the population. 15. The authorities also suspended telephone and Internet coverage in Annobón, thereby leaving its inhabitants completely isolated from the rest of the world. 2 See “Guinea Ecuatorial acepta almacenar residuos tóxicos” (Equatorial Guinea agrees to store toxic waste), El País, 16 June 1988. 3 See, for example, A/HRC/27/13. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 4 GE.25-07433 (ii) Arrest and detention 16. From 19 July 2024 onwards, the individuals who had signed the manifesto and the preceding letter, in addition to other residents and family members who had shown their support, were arrested in Annobón by the Government. Other members of the group of 37 individuals from Annobón who are referred to in the present opinion were arrested by the authorities in Malabo and Bata for having peacefully demonstrated in favour of stopping the explosions and detonations across the island. 17. According to the source, the executive authorities openly acknowledged having ordered the militarization of the island and the widespread detention of individuals from Annobón who were linked to the protests. For example, on 24 July 2024, the Vice-President publicly stated the following on a social network: “Those who are responsible for the possible crimes of rebellion and sedition in Annobón will be held accountable for their actions before the law. The justice system will make them understand that they have no right to block activities initiated by the Government for the common good. Consequently, the quarry will continue to be used to ensure the completion of development projects in Annobón and other parts of Equatorial Guinea.” 18. The 37 individuals from Annobón were initially placed in detention centres in Annobón and gendarmerie facilities in Malabo. They were held in these facilities without being brought before a judge or granted access to adequate legal assistance until 12 August 2024. 19. On 22 July 2024, the detainees’ relatives appointed a lawyer. However, this lawyer was prevented from contacting the detainees on several occasions and was subsequently suspended from his duties by the Bar Association of Equatorial Guinea. 20. The lawyer filed two habeas corpus petitions, the first on 29 July 2024 and the second on 31 July 2024. 21. The source notes that, although domestic law establishes that habeas corpus petitions must be resolved within 36 hours of the issuance of the order initiating proceedings (Act No. 18/1995, art. 9), the petitions in question were not even transmitted to the relevant authorities, let alone resolved. The source adds that this situation arose because the executive has control over the judiciary. 22. On 8 August 2024, five women who had been detained for the same reasons as the 37 individuals were released. However, they appeared to have been released on the condition that they would appear on the country’s public television channel, TVGE, which is under the authority of the Ministry of Information, Press and Culture and is the only channel in the country, to confess that acts of sedition and rebellion had been committed in Annobón. 23. On 12 August 2024, the individuals who had been detained in Annobón were transferred to Malabo in a military plane belonging to the presidential fleet. 24. The source reports that the individuals who had been detained in Annobón were tortured by the police, who, on the orders of the island’s General and Governor, bludgeoned them on the buttocks. Some of the individuals were kept in handcuffs and chains for hours, with no food or water, before being placed on the military plane and taken to Malabo, both blindfolded and hooded. Once they reached Malabo, some of them were unable to sit or sleep because of the injuries caused by the bludgeoning. 25. The detainees then faced a joint interrogation in the Malabo gendarmerie. This interrogation was conducted without their lawyer, who was prohibited from entering the premises and was sent away. 26. It was reported that, during the joint interrogation, the detainees were subjected to physical torture, mostly in the form of severe beatings, spitting in the face, slaps to the ears and sparks in the eyes. Some of the detainees had their glasses broken. The detainees were also reported to have faced psychological torture, including intimidation by uniformed individuals wearing masks and carrying machine guns. The main purpose of this abuse was to obtain a confession and extract information that would implicate other inhabitants of Annobón, with a view to establishing who had written the manifesto and the letter preceding it. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 5 27. After the first joint interrogation, the detainees whom the authorities considered to be leaders of the protest were taken to the office of the head of the gendarmerie for individual interrogations. Some of the alleged leaders were then taken to a room with traces of blood, where they had to kneel and watch as, one by one, the others were violently interrogated and tortured. 28. One of the detainees was tortured by being beaten on the soles of his feet after having been tied up using the “crocodile technique”, also known as the “piglet technique”, the use of which is widely reported in cases of torture in the country. 29. During these interrogations, the questions were focused on identifying the individuals who had participated in and financed collective action in Annobón. The security forces assumed that there was a document linking these individuals to an organization. 30. It is reported that some of the 37 detainees are relatives who had attempted to bring food to the individuals already detained in the gendarmerie facilities in Malabo and were subsequently placed in the cell with them. 31. On 12 August 2024, the 37 detainees were taken from the gendarmerie to the courthouse without having eaten that day. Their lawyer was given just one hour’s notice, meaning that he had no time to prepare for the hearing. The 37 individuals appeared before Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2. 32. The hearing lasted for approximately four hours and was interrupted by pauses during which the judge left the room and apparently received instructions on the case. In addition, the 37 individuals were unable to make submissions, and the defence lawyer was prevented from attending the hearing, which was held behind closed doors. 33. The judicial decision ordering the pretrial detention of the 37 individuals was issued through Order No. 67/2024 (ordinary proceedings No. 44/2024) of 12 August 2024, in which they were charged with crimes including slander, libel, the abusive exercise of fundamental rights, breach of constitutional order, the commission of acts that jeopardize peace, and rebellion. This decision was taken after a joint hearing, with no examination of individual cases, and was based on an insubstantial order that failed to set out clear factual or legal grounds. 34. The 37 detainees were subsequently loaded onto a truck guarded by a convoy of military vehicles and taken, in accordance with the judicial order, to Black Beach prison in Malabo. 35. On 14 August 2024, the Bar Association of Equatorial Guinea temporarily suspended the victims’ lawyer from practising law. This measure meant that the lawyer was suspended from practising law throughout the country and prohibited from authorizing other lawyers to replace him in his professional duties. It also led to the closure of his office. 36. The 37 detainees are currently being assisted by members of the Commission of Jurists of Equatorial Guinea, who are gradually being granted contact with them. 37. According to the source, it is not known when the 37 detainees, who are currently the subject of pretrial proceedings (criminal investigation phase), will stand trial. 38. It is presumed that the 37 individuals have been held at Black Beach prison since they were transferred to this correctional facility pursuant to the judicial decision of 12 August

2024. According to the source, this prison is known worldwide for housing multiple political prisoners and for the extremely tough conditions of detention, as has been highlighted in reports of the special procedures.4 It is reported that prisoners are provided with little food and that relatives of the oldest detainees are allowed to bring them water on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. 39. It cannot be ascertained, however, whether all 37 detainees are in Black Beach prison or whether they have been transferred to other detention centres. They have all had limited 4 See A/HRC/7/4/Add.3. See also https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/working-group- arbitrary-detention-concludes-visit-equatorial-guinea. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 6 GE.25-07433 contact with their relatives, who fear that they will be arrested and charged if they attempt to visit them. Some of the detainees have been unable to see their families since their arrest. (iii) Legal analysis a. Category I 40. The source states that the arrests of the 37 individuals were ordered unilaterally by the executive authorities, whose militarization of the island of Annobón was publicized on social media by the country’s Vice-President. 41. According to the source, the 37 individuals were detained without respect for domestic legislation and were held in police, military and gendarmerie facilities, with no access to habeas corpus proceedings or adequate assistance, until they were brought before a judge on 12 August 2024. Before that date, they did not enjoy any of the guarantees designed to protect them while in detention, in violation of the country’s domestic legislation, in particular article 4 (1) of Act No. 4/2002 and article 13 of the Constitution. 42. The source concludes that the detention of the 37 individuals did not have a legal basis under domestic law that is also compliant with international law and that there was no system of guarantees to enable them to challenge their detention before independent courts. Accordingly, their detention violates article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant and is arbitrary under category I. b. Category II 43. The source alleges that the militarization of Annobón and the mass detention of individuals who had signed a manifesto against the use of dynamite and explosives on their island led to the curtailment of those individuals’ rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly and political association, and civic and political participation, which are protected by articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant. 44. The source states that all these rights were violated as a result of the arbitrary detention of the 37 individuals, the purpose of which was to prevent the legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression, opinion, assembly, association and political participation. c. Category III 45. The source submits that the authorities’ militarization of the island of Annobón and widespread detention of individuals who had signed a manifesto constitute violations of the right of the 37 detainees to due process, which is enshrined in articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant. 46. According to the source, the 37 detainees were subjected to torture and lacked legal assistance. The habeas corpus applications filed on their behalf were not duly processed. The source also highlights the relationship between torture and the violation of judicial guarantees in the context of State custody. 47. On 12 August 2024, the 37 detainees were brought collectively before a court in a private hearing. They had no legal assistance, and there was no individual examination of their cases. They were placed in pretrial detention in Black Beach prison on the grounds that they presented a flight risk and on charges of slander, libel, the abusive exercise of fundamental rights, breach of constitutional order, the commission of acts that jeopardize peace, and rebellion, without any consideration or challenging of evidence. According to the source, all those measures violated the judicial guarantees and due process provided for in domestic law. 48. The source notes that the detainees lacked adequate access to lawyers during their detention, of which there was no judicial review, and their appearance before the judicial authority.5 5 Opinion No. 32/2021, para. 43. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 7 49. In addition, there was no immediate judicial review of the detention of the 37 individuals, in violation of domestic law.6 50. In the light of the foregoing, the source claims that the detention of the 37 individuals is arbitrary under category III. d. Category V 51. The source alleges that the detention of the 37 individuals is arbitrary under category V. 52. The source emphasizes that the inhabitants of Annobón have different ethnic, linguistic and cultural characteristics and that the island, which is remote and far from the mainland (three days away by boat), is recognized within the country as having a distinct identity. 53. The source recalls that the Working Group stated in a previous case that, when detention results from the exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political views.7 It has also stated that, in a climate of political persecution, the detention of individuals for exercising their right to participate in the conduct of public affairs constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be arbitrary under category V. 54. The source notes that the authorities of Equatorial Guinea claimed that the inhabitants of Annobón had staged a “rebellion”, which led to the militarization of the island as an emergency measure. This assertion makes no legal sense, as previously highlighted by the Working Group.8 (b) Response from the Government 55. The Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the Government on 16 December 2024 and requested it to respond no later than 14 February 2025. The Government requested an extension of the time limit for its response, which was granted. The Working Group received the Government’s response on 13 March 2025, within the established time limit. 56. The Government submits that the source’s communication does not fall into any of the Working Group’s five categories and claims that the proceedings were consistent with international and national law, with steps taken to respect due process and ensure a fair trial. It states that the arrests were carried out legally and with the involvement of the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary. 57. The Government reports that the country’s criminal procedure law is based on the Constitution, article 13 of which sets out the guiding principles, and Decree-Law No. 4/1980, which provides for the subsidiary application of laws that were in force until 12 October 1968, such as Act No. 3 of 1967 amending the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, in accordance with article 8 of the Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights are also applicable to criminal proceedings. 58. The Government provided documents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2022 from the Attorney General’s Office, which concern a complaint against the unilateral declaration of independence by some inhabitants of the province of Annobón and the opening of proceedings against three individuals for crimes under articles 123, 129 and 132 of the Criminal Code on affronts to the Republic and national sentiment. 59. In addition, the Government submitted Order No. 90/2024 of 12 August 2024 of Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2 on the opening of ordinary proceedings against the 37 individuals for the crimes of libel, slander, the abusive exercise of fundamental rights, 6 Ibid., para. 41. 7 Opinion No. 62/2020, para. 74. 8 Opinion No. 3/2009, para. 30. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 8 GE.25-07433 breach of constitutional order, rebellion and the commission of acts that jeopardize peace. It also attached Order No. 27/2024 authorizing the individuals’ placement in pretrial detention, in accordance with article 503 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in order to guarantee public order, public safety, the administration of justice and the rights of the alleged injured party, who was clearly at risk. Lastly, it attached Order No. 001/2024 declaring the defendants to be poor and providing for free assistance for 27 of them. 60. The Government reports that the detention of the 37 individuals was ordered by the judiciary on the grounds of their alleged involvement in the crimes of libel, slander, rebellion, the abusive exercise of fundamental rights, breach of constitutional order and the commission of acts that jeopardize peace. Thirty-seven individuals from Annobón were charged. The proceedings were initiated through a complaint, in line with articles 259–269 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which establish the obligation to report public offences and regulate any subsequent proceedings. 61. Lastly, the Government submits that public defenders were made available to all the defendants in order to guarantee their right of defence. (c) Additional comments from the source 62. The source notes that the Government’s response contains formalistic arguments, since it cites domestic law without refuting the substance of the source’s claims. The source affirms that the existence of guarantees in domestic law does not automatically mean that detentions are lawful or cannot be deemed arbitrary under international law. 63. The source states that the detention of the 37 individuals constitutes a violation of both international law and domestic procedural law, as does the failure to process the habeas corpus petitions filed on 29 and 31 July 2024, which, according to article 13 (1) (i) of the Constitution and article 9 of Act No. 18/1995, must be resolved by a competent judge within 36 hours. In addition, the detainees were deprived of their liberty following mass raids ordered by the executive, which were conducted despite there being no criminal case or judicial warrant, in violation of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires that detainees be brought before a judge within 24 hours of their arrest so that the judge may rule on their situation within 72 hours. There was also a breach of Act No. 4/2002, under which detainees must be brought before a court if the police investigation is not concluded within 72 hours. 64. Furthermore, the source claims that the Government is seeking, through the documents it submitted, to construct a false narrative surrounding the arrests made from 19 July 2024 onwards, by fictitiously linking them, in bad faith, to a complaint brought by the Public Prosecution Service in 2022 against individuals residing in Spain in connection with an alleged declaration of independence. The arrests in the present case, however, were made two years later and are linked to a manifesto produced by citizens in Annobón to denounce the use of dynamite. 65. It is reported that the judicial proceedings against the 37 individuals (proceedings No. 44/2024) were not opened until 12 August 2024, meaning that the individuals were held for 25 days without there being a criminal case against them. According to the source, the Government is acting in bad faith by attempting to justify the detentions by linking them to a previous complaint in an unrelated case. 66. The documents attached by the Government confirm that the arrests were ordered by the executive and targeted individuals who had signed the manifesto and delivered it to the island’s authorities on 17 July 2024. However, no legal proceedings were opened until 12 August 2024, when the individuals concerned were placed in pretrial detention. During the intervening period, the detainees remained in police custody without access to a judicial authority, even though no criminal case had been opened. Their habeas corpus petitions were not processed, and the legal time limits for detention were not respected. 67. The source indicates that the detainees were not granted access to legal assistance from the moment of their arrest on 19 July 2024 and that they were first assigned a public defender on 27 August 2024, as stated in Order No. 001/2024 of Malabo Court of A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 9 Investigation No. 2, through which they were also declared to be poor and their existing lawyer was suspended. 68. The source notes that the Government has not responded to several of its allegations, in particular those relating to arbitrary detention, despite the fact that the burden of proof to refute those allegations rests upon the Government. 2. Discussion 69. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. 70. The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.9 (a) Category I 71. The source submits that the detention was arbitrary under category I because the executive authorities ordered the mass, systematic and widespread arrest, from 19 July 2024 onwards, of individuals who had drafted and signed a manifesto calling for a halt to the explosions and detonations on the island of Annobón. Eighteen of the island’s inhabitants were arrested in Annobón. A further 19 individuals were subsequently arrested in the cities of Malabo and Bata on account of their ties with those who had already been detained. The detainees were held in various police, military and gendarmerie facilities in San Antonio de Palé, Malabo and Bata, despite there being no arrest warrant or ongoing judicial proceedings to justify their detention. 72. On this point, the Government denies that the arrests were carried out illegally and asserts that they were prompted by the reporting of a public offence, in accordance with article 259 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and were linked to the judicial proceedings initiated in 2022 in response to the unilateral declaration of independence by the people of Annobón on 4 September 2022, complaint No. 21/2022 of 5 September 2022, and a document from the Attorney General’s Office appointing the chief anti-drug prosecutor of Malabo to investigate the allegations regarding that declaration of independence. 73. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment require that procedures for carrying out legally authorized deprivation of liberty be provided for by law and that States Parties ensure that they are respected, including by specifying when an arrest warrant is required.10 If these procedures are not respected, a detention is arbitrary and seriously undermines the ability to conduct a proper legal defence. 74. 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 that authorizes the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.11 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).12 75. The Working Group notes the source’s claim that the arrest of the 37 individuals followed the signing of a declaration calling for a halt to the exploitation of the island’s resources, which was submitted to the authorities on 17 July 2024. This led to the arrest, both in Annobón and elsewhere in Equatorial Guinea, of individuals who supported the social protests that were taking place on the island at the time. The Government argues that the arrests were made in accordance with the law, since they had been prompted by a complaint. The Working Group notes, however, that the complaint relates to events that occurred in 2022 and are not connected to what has happened since 19 July 2024 or to the individuals 9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68. 10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23. 11 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46. 12 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. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 10 GE.25-07433 under investigation. It is thus of the view that the Government has not presented an arrest warrant or a court order invoking the legal basis for the arrests. 76. The Working Group notes with concern that the inhabitants of Annobón were arrested without a warrant, when they were not in the process of committing an offence. It therefore considers that their detention lacks any legal basis, constitutes a violation of article 9 of the Covenant and is arbitrary under category I. 77. In addition, the source reports that the 37 individuals were held in detention until 12 August 2024, when they appeared before Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2. They were held for 25 days without receiving legal assistance or being brought before a judge and without the habeas corpus petitions filed on their behalf being processed, in violation of the country’s domestic laws, in particular article 4 (1) of Act No. 4/2002, articles 496 and 497 of the Criminal Procedure Act and article 13 of the Constitution, which establishes that all persons have the right to habeas corpus proceedings. 78. In its response, the Government does not mention for how long the 37 individuals were detained before their appearance before Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2 on 12 August 2024. 79. As has previously been established, persons who are detained have the right to be promptly informed of the charges against them. If these procedures are not respected, the detention is arbitrary and seriously undermines the ability to conduct a proper legal defence. 80. Moreover, the Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law that may authorize the arrest. The reasons for the arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual specifics to indicate the substance of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.13 81. The ability to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the arbitrariness and lawfulness of detention and to obtain without delay appropriate and accessible remedies is a non-derogable right under international law.14 According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge, who will perform his or her judicial duties. As the Human Rights Committee has noted, 48 hours is normally sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power following his or her arrest; any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.15 Article 9 (4) of the Covenant guarantees the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court.16 Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty17 and is essential in order to ensure that detention has a legal basis. 82. Taking into account all the allegations made by the parties, the Working Group notes that the Government has not explained the reasons for the arrests or why it took 25 days for the 37 arrested persons to be brought before a judge, in violation of article 496 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which establishes a 24-hour time limit for bringing detainees before a judge, and article 497 of that same law, under which judges are granted 72 hours to make a decision regarding detention. 83. The Working Group notes that two habeas corpus petitions were filed during the 25 day period that the 37 individuals were held in detention, with a view to prompting a judicial review of that measure. These petitions were not processed by the competent court, in contravention of article 13 (1) (i) of the Constitution. The petitions should have been resolved by the competent judge within 36 hours. The fact that no explanation was given for the failure to process them should also be taken into account. The Working Group notes that 13 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69. 14 A/HRC/30/37, annex (United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court), principle 4, para. 4. See also E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4, paras. 28 and 52. See also opinion No. 15/2019, para. 28. 15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32 and 33. 16 See opinions No. 35/2018, No. 9/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 45/2019 and No. 25/2021. 17 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 11 basic due process standards have not been met, given the length of time for which the 37 detainees have been held in prison without access to the safeguards recognized by law, including the right to promptly challenge the lawfulness of their detention in accordance with articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 84. In view of the foregoing, the Working Group finds that article 9 (2)–(4) of the Covenant and articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been violated. The Working Group concludes that the detention of the 37 individuals is arbitrary under category I. (b) Category II 85. The source alleges that the detention of the 37 individuals was prompted by the signing and delivery to the authorities of a manifesto against the use of dynamite and explosives on the island of Annobón, which was dated 17 July 2024 and entitled “Voice of the people of Annobón on the use of dynamite”. It adds that this manifesto was drafted and signed in the presence of the authorities of Equatorial Guinea on the island and was prepared in follow-up to a letter dated 9 July 2024, in which the inhabitants of Annobón had made similar demands. The source reports that the Government responded to the request by carrying out mass arrests, both on the island and in other cities, of people who had supported the manifesto and the preceding letter. 86. The Government reports that, according to Order No. 90/2024 of Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2, the arrests were carried out for the crimes of libel, slander, rebellion, the abusive exercise of fundamental rights, breach of constitutional order and the commission of acts that jeopardize peace. It also refers to the investigation opened in 2022 in connection with the declaration of independence, which concerned three other inhabitants of Annobón. 87. The Working Group recalls that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are essential for any society and constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society.18 Moreover, given that peaceful assemblies often have expressive functions, and that political speech enjoys particular protection as a form of expression, it follows that assemblies with a political message should enjoy a heightened level of accommodation and protection.19 88. The Human Rights Committee has indicated that freedom of expression includes the right to express and receive communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others, covering political discourse and commentary on one’s own and public affairs.20 89. While freedom of expression is not an absolute right and may be subject to restrictions, the Human Rights Committee has established that extreme care must be taken by States to ensure that treason laws and similar provisions relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. It is not compatible with paragraph 3, for instance, to invoke such laws to suppress or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security or to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmental activists, human rights defenders, or others, for having disseminated such information.21 90. The Working Group considers that the acts alleged by the source constitute a violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, since the arrests were prompted by a written statement drafted and signed by the inhabitants of Annobón in response to events on their island and the use of explosives to exploit the island’s resources. In this regard, the Government has not sufficiently explained what the 37 individuals did to threaten public safety or public order in such a way that their detention was necessary and proportionate. 18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2. 19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 37 (2020), para. 32. 20 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11. 21 Ibid, para. 30. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 12 GE.25-07433 91. The source alleges that the detention of the 37 individuals was also motivated by their opposition to the events on the island and their exercise of the rights to freedom of assembly and political association and to civic and political participation. The Government does not address this allegation directly. 92. After taking note of the parties’ allegations, the Working Group considers that it has been demonstrated that the detention of the 37 inhabitants of Annobón was also prompted by the exercise of their rights of assembly, association and participation in the political affairs of their country. It has not been demonstrated that there were serious security or public order concerns that would justify as severe a measure as detention. 93. In addition, the Working Group notes that the actions of the 37 detainees were aimed at protecting the environment in Annobón. According to the source’s arguments on this point, which were not refuted, the private company that used explosives in Annobón was seeking to exploit the island’s mineral resources and to open quarries without any type of environmental regulation. 94. This situation prompts the Working Group to reaffirm that the work of human rights defenders is fundamental to the strengthening of democracy. The obstacles and restrictions faced by environmental human rights defenders have been of particular interest to the Working Group.22 In the same vein, the Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution recognizing the importance of environmental human rights defenders and their protection, in which it expressed grave concern about their situation around the world and strongly condemned all violations or abuses against them by State and non-State actors, stressing that such acts may violate international law and undermine sustainable development at the local, national, regional and international levels.23 It should be recalled that a heightened standard of protection and detention review applies in cases where freedom of expression and opinion appear to have been restricted, particularly when such detentions involve human rights defenders.24 95. Consequently, the Working Group considers that, in the light of the information provided by the Government and the source, it can be concluded that the arrest and detention of the 37 individuals were the result of the exercise of their rights and thus represent a violation of articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Accordingly, the detentions were arbitrary under category II. (c) Category III 96. In the light of its findings under category II, the Working Group is of the view that the 37 individuals should not have stood trial. Nonetheless, proceedings were initiated against them. 97. The source reports that the 37 individuals were detained from 19 July 2024 and held in detention for 25 days, during which time they were not provided with legal assistance or brought before a competent court. The source adds that, during their appearance before Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2 on 12 August 2024, the 37 individuals received no legal assistance and were not allowed to defend themselves. In addition, on 14 August 2024, the lawyer who had filed two habeas corpus petitions on their behalf was temporarily suspended from practising law and prohibited from authorizing other lawyers to replace him. 98. In its response, the Government makes no reference to the suspension of the lawyer. However, it reports that on 27 August 2024, public defenders were assigned to 27 of the individuals in view of their lack of financial means. 99. With regard to the source’s allegations concerning the refusal to give effect to the detainees’ right to legal assistance, the Working Group recalls that legal assistance must be guaranteed from the outset of the deprivation of liberty and throughout the proceedings. Furthermore, suspects must be questioned with a lawyer present, especially if a confession is 22 Opinion No. 30/2024, para. 86. See also A/HRC/54/51, paras. 55–58. 23 Human Rights Council resolution 40/11. 24 Opinions No. 41/2017, para. 95; No. 88/2017; and No. 30/2024, para. 90. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 13 made.25 The Working Group notes that some of the 37 individuals were detained for 25 days without being given the opportunity to receive legal assistance and were even interrogated without a trusted lawyer present. The Working Group recalls that the presence of legal counsel during interrogations is an essential safeguard in ensuring that any admissions by an individual are given freely.26 100. The Government does not provide reliable information on the provision of legal aid for the 37 individuals who were arrested from 19 July 2024 onwards. Instead, it simply provides information on the free legal aid that was assigned on 27 August 2024 to just 27 of those individuals following the first hearing before Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2 on 12 August 2024. 101. The Working Group notes that the 37 individuals were temporarily represented by a lawyer who filed two habeas corpus petitions on their behalf. The Working Group is concerned about the lawyer’s temporary suspension by the Bar Association. The Working Group recalls that legal counsel should be able to carry out their functions effectively and independently, free from fear of reprisal, interference, intimidation, hindrance or harassment.27 102. With regard to the hearing held on 12 August 2024 at Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2, the source alleges that the hearing was held behind closed doors and that the defendants lacked proper legal assistance and did not have the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. After the hearing, they were placed in pretrial detention. In its response, the Government acknowledges that the hearing was held and that the 37 individuals – who were accused of slander, libel, the abusive exercise of fundamental rights, breach of constitutional order, the commission of acts that jeopardize peace, and rebellion – were placed in pretrial detention on the grounds that they presented a flight risk. 103. The right to legal assistance is also essential to preserve the right to a fair trial, since it safeguards the principle of equality of arms provided for in articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. The Working Group notes that, while the minutes of the hearings mention the presence of defence lawyers, they do not name the lawyers individually or specify whom the lawyers represented. It is acknowledged that the hearing continued even though 27 of the inhabitants of Annobón did not have a proper defence. Those inhabitants were assigned a public defender free of charge after the hearing. Consequently, at least 27 of the 37 individuals did not have a legal representative to help them exercise their rights during the hearing. This situation constitutes a violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 104. The source argues that, on 12 August 2024, the 37 individuals were collectively brought before a court, which did not hear their cases individually. Article 14 (2) of the Covenant guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The Working Group reiterates that joint trials run the risk of violating the norms and standards of international human rights law, including the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.28 Having considered the source’s detailed arguments and the Government’s failure to provide a detailed and substantiated response that would be sufficient to disprove these allegations, the Working Group considers that the situation in question constitutes a further violation of the detainees’ right to a fair trial, specifically the right to a fair and equal hearing enshrined in article 14 (1) and (3) of the Covenant. 105. In addition, the source alleges that the 37 individuals were subjected to torture. In particular, it is claimed that, following their transfer to Malabo, they were subjected to interrogations in which physical and psychological torture was reportedly used to extract confessions and information implicating other individuals from Annobón. 106. Taking note of the source’s serious allegations of physical and psychological ill-treatment and torture and the fact that the purpose of some of this ill-treatment was to 25 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51 and 53. 26 Ibid, para. 53. 27 Ibid, para. 54. 28 Opinions No. 65/2019, para. 75; No. 9/2023, para. 89; and No. 43/2024, para. 99. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 14 GE.25-07433 extract confessions and information, the Working Group considers that the Government has not provided information on the measures taken to investigate the veracity of these allegations and guarantee that no information obtained through ill-treatment or torture was used in the proceedings. The Working Group recalls that article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture. Furthermore, the Working Group itself has stated that the use of evidence obtained through torture is contrary to the fundamental principles of a fair trial, as it can compromise a person’s ability to defend himself or herself. In accordance with article 15 of the Convention against Torture and article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, no statement obtained as a result of torture may be invoked as evidence, either against the person who made the statement or against a third party, in any proceedings. The use of such evidence would make the trial unfair. In addition, the Convention against Torture establishes the obligation to promptly investigate alleged violations and bring the perpetrators to justice. The Working Group therefore concludes that article 14 of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been violated. 107. The Working Group concludes that the violations of the rights of the 37 individuals to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to render the deprivation of liberty arbitrary, in violation of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) of the Covenant, and fall under category III. (d) Category V 108. The source claims that the 37 individuals are inhabitants of the island of Annobón, which is three days away from the mainland by boat, and that they therefore have different ethnic, linguistic and cultural characteristics. It adds that the authorities of Equatorial Guinea have invoked the staging of a rebellion by the people of Annobón, which led to the militarization of the island. 109. The Government’s response does not address the source’s allegations under this category. 110. The Working Group recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when it 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.29 111. Taking into account the analysis under category II, the Working Group stresses that, where detention is the result of the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that it also constitutes a violation of international law on grounds of discrimination based on political or other views.30 In this context, the Working Group refers to the source’s allegations under category II, which have not been refuted by the Government. 112. The source states that the inhabitants of Annobón have their own ethnic, linguistic and cultural characteristics. It also discusses how, since the country became independent, the Government has signed contracts with private parties to allow for the island’s resources to be exploited and for the island to be used as an international dumping ground. The Government provides no evidence to the contrary. The Working Group notes that, in addition to arresting protesters in July 2024, the authorities cut off the Internet and other forms of communication used by the people of Annobón as a form of collective punishment. These acts support the finding of discrimination. In this context, the Working Group takes note of the mass detention of the 37 individuals who were linked to the manifesto against the exploitation of the island, all of whom were considered to be involved in efforts to enable the people of the island to exercise their rights. 113. The Working Group considers this detention to be arbitrary under category V because of the discrimination against the 37 individuals from Annobón. They were detained for having signed and delivered a manifesto against the explosions in Annobón and on account 29 Opinion No. 30/2024, para. 124. 30 See opinions No. 59/2019 and No. 7/2024. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 GE.25-07433 15 of their position within their community, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. (e) Concluding remarks 114. The Working Group is alarmed by the allegations concerning the 37 individuals’ conditions of detention, which have not been adequately refuted by the Government. The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with article 10 (1) of the Covenant and rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity, including by being allowed to enjoy the same standards of healthcare that are available in the community. 115. In order to allow the Working Group to establish a direct dialogue with all State authorities, representatives of civil society and detained persons, with a view to gaining a better understanding of the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country, the Working Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a visit to Equatorial Guinea. 3. Disposition 116. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of the 37 individuals from Annobón, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9–11 and 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V. 117. The Working Group requests the Government to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of the 37 individuals 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. 118. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the 37 individuals immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. 119. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the 37 individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights. 120. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible. 4. Follow-up procedure 121. 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 the 37 individuals have been released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the 37 individuals; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of the 37 individuals 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 Equatorial Guinea with its international obligations in line with the present opinion; (e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion. 122. 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 A/HRC/WGAD/2025/13 16 GE.25-07433 whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working Group. 123. 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. 124. 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.31 [Adopted on 2 April 2025] 31 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.