Opinion; Subjects: EGYPT, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-07106 (E)
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. 23/2025 concerning Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam Abd
el-Fattah Hamed (Egypt)
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 9 December 2024, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Alaa Ahmed Seif
al-Islam Abd el-Fattah Hamed. The Government replied to the communication on 6 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/2025/23
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 June 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
2
GE.25-07106
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mr. Abd el-Fattah was born in 1981 and is a dual national of Egypt and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is a software developer, writer and
political activist ordinarily residing in Giza.
(i)
Context
5.
According to the source, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was among the first in the Egyptian online
community to advocate for political change in Egypt, his name becoming synonymous with
the 2011 uprising. He has won awards and international recognition for his activism.
6.
Starting in 2006, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was reportedly arrested and detained on several
occasions for protesting peacefully, notably in support of an independent judiciary and
against the court-martialling of civilians before military tribunals. In a 2016 opinion, the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found one such instance of the detention of Mr. Abd
el-Fattah to be arbitrary and called for his immediate release.2 Upon his release in 2019,
Mr. Abd el-Fattah was allegedly subjected to a probation condition requiring him to spend
12 hours each day at the Dokki Police Station for a period of five years.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
On 29 September 2019, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was reportedly arrested again from inside
his cell in the Dokki Police Station for being a member of a terrorist organization, funding a
terrorist organization, spreading “false news” that harmed the national interests of Egypt and
misusing social media to spread false news.
8.
According to the source, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was taken to the headquarters of the
Supreme State Security Prosecution in Cairo for interrogation. No arrest warrant was
produced. He was not informed of the name of the terrorism organization that he was accused
of belonging to and funding, or the basis for the false news allegations. His lawyer was also
arrested on suspicion of the same charges.
9.
On 30 September 2019, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was reportedly transferred to the Tora II
prison, where, upon arrival, he was blindfolded, stripped to his underwear and beaten as part
of a so-called welcome parade. He was not permitted any exercise time or fresh air and denied
access to reading materials, adequate clothing and hot water. According to the source, none
of the complaints made on behalf of Mr. Abd el-Fattah to the Prosecutor General between
October 2019 and March 2021, including in respect of threats and physical mistreatment that
he had suffered in the Tora II prison, led to a response.
10.
The source further claims that, for most of this period, under the pretext of the
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was allowed only very limited
access to his lawyers, with prison visits suspended and no alternative means of private
communication offered. In addition, he was not allowed to send letters to his family.
11.
According to the source, no court hearings took place between Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s
arrest on 29 September 2019 and 18 February 2020, during which time his pretrial detention
was renewed every 15 days by a prosecutor.
12.
The source states that, on 18 February 2020, his case was referred to a criminal court
for the review and renewal of his pretrial detention, in accordance with Egyptian law, which
requires such review and renewal every 45 days, resulting in the court ordering Mr. Abd
el-Fattah’s release. That order was overturned two days later, however, following an appeal
from the prosecution. The next review hearing, due in April 2020, never took place, allegedly
because of the pandemic.
2 Opinion No. 6/2016.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
3
13.
In May 2020, Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention was extended without reasons being
provided, the decision having allegedly been taken in his absence and in respect of which his
lawyers were not permitted to make representations.
14.
On 17 August 2021, with the two-year limit for pretrial detention under Egyptian law
about to expire, the Supreme State Security Prosecution reportedly brought Mr. Abd el-Fattah
back in for questioning and revealed that the evidence for the crime for which he was being
held was a Facebook post that he had shared concerning the death of a Tora II prison inmate.
It transpired also that the Tora II prison official identified in the Facebook post as implicated
in the death of the inmate was the same individual who supervised Mr. Abd el-Fattah and
had been responsible for his welcome parade.
15.
The source further alleges that, on 16 October 2021, the Supreme State Security
Prosecution referred Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s case to the Emergency State Security Court, without
informing his lawyers. He was charged with spreading false news harming the national
interests of Egypt. Requests by his lawyer for access to the 2,000-page case file, or a copy
thereof, for permission to visit him in detention and to call as witnesses prison officials,
including the one identified in the Facebook post, were rejected or ignored.
16.
On 20 December 2021, the Emergency State Security Court reportedly convicted
Mr. Abd el-Fattah of spreading false news harming the national interests of Egypt, pursuant
to articles 80 (d) and 102 (bis) of the Criminal Code, for sharing the Facebook post, and
sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Neither the prosecution nor the defence were
allegedly heard on the merits at the trial. The source states that the verdict is not subject to
appeal, as it was issued by an emergency court, and only the President of Egypt has the
authority to quash it or to commute the sentence. The sentence was purportedly ratified on
3 January 2022, without the time already spent in detention being deducted. That means that,
absent presidential intervention, Mr. Abd el-Fattah will remain in prison until at least
3 January 2027.
17.
In December 2021, Mr. Abd el-Fattah became a British citizen. The source claims,
however, that the Egyptian authorities have refused to grant the United Kingdom consular
access to Mr. Abd el-Fattah.
18.
Moreover, in April 2022, Mr. Abd el-Fattah embarked on a hunger strike, leading
world leaders and United Nations experts, including the Working Group, to express fears for
his life and call for his release. 3 In May 2022, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was moved to Wadi
al-Natrun Prison following public pressure, but he was still denied time to exercise and placed
in a prison cell in which the lights were never turned off and there was a camera switched on
at all times. Prison officials also blocked his access to his lawyers and he was only allowed
20-minute visits behind security glass, limiting meaningful interaction with his family.
(iii)
Legal analysis
19.
The source argues that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention constitutes an arbitrary
deprivation of his liberty under categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group’s methods
of work.
a.
Category I
20.
The source argues that, contrary to the requirements stemming from article 9 (2) of
the Covenant, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was never shown an arrest warrant or provided information
about his arrest and the allegations against him. It submits that the terrorist organization that
he was accused of belonging to and financing was never named. Moreover, the authorities
did not explain what false news he had purportedly spread, nor how he had harmed the
national interests of Egypt in doing so. No indictment was ever issued.
21.
The source underlines that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was held in pretrial detention for nearly
two years before being notified, on 17 August 2021, of the basis for the sole offence for which
he was convicted – spreading false news, based on his sharing the Facebook post regarding
3 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UN experts call for
immediate release of Alaa Abdel Fattah”, 11 November 2022.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
4
GE.25-07106
the death of the inmate in the Tora II prison. The source therefore concludes that he cannot
be said to have been promptly informed of the charges against him.
22.
The source argues that the offence of spreading false news under article 80 (d) of the
Criminal Code is extremely vague, making it vulnerable to an excessively broad
interpretation by the authorities. Moreover, it points out that numerous human rights bodies,
including the Working Group, have found that defamation should not be criminally punished
or lead to a custodial sentence.4 While articles 80 (d) and 102 (bis) of the Criminal Code may
not address defamation per se, there is little to distinguish between laws on libel and those
provisions on harming “national interests” by spreading “false news” – particularly when it
comes to freedom of expression. As a result, the imposition of a five-year sentence on
Mr. Abd el-Fattah in application of those two provisions for an online act relating to an issue
of obvious public interest is unnecessary, disproportionate and excessive.5
23.
The source further submits that article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant requires prompt,
meaningful and periodic review of the detention, which would also be in line with article 54
of the Constitution of Egypt, and that judicial oversight is essential in ensuring that detention
has a legal basis. In addition, the Working Group has found that there had been a violation
of article 9 (4) of the Covenant where the victim’s detention had been effectively
automatically renewed every 45 days by the prosecution, such that it was arbitrary under
category I.6
24.
In a clear breach of those requirements, however, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was detained for
more than two years before his trial took place. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the
Egyptian authorities even considered the possibility of releasing him on bail, let alone that
they had carried out a substantive review of his detention. Rather, his pretrial detention was,
in effect, automatically renewed by the prosecution. For example, in September 2021,
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention was simply extended for a further 45 days.
b.
Category II
25.
According to the source, Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention is arbitrary under category II
insofar as it results from the violation of his freedom of opinion and expression, as enshrined
in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.7
The source points out that those provisions extend to the work of writers and bloggers and to
social media content.8 Moreover, they include the right of individuals to criticize or openly
and publicly evaluate their Governments without fear of interference or punishment.9
26.
In addition, the source recalls the Working Group’s statement that “general
prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas,
including false news or information, are incompatible with international standards on
restrictions on freedom of expression”.10
27.
The source considers that, given Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s role as a political activist and
the fact that he has been publicly critical of the Egyptian authorities, his incarceration
demands an intense review, especially as it is just the latest instance of his being targeted in
that way. It posits that the Egyptian authorities are seeking to make an example of him and
4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 47; Human Rights Committee,
Adonis v. Philippines (CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008/Rev.1), paras 7.7–7.10; and opinion No. 35/2008,
para. 36.
5 Opinions No. 10/2018, paras. 53 and 54; and No. 36/2019, para. 44.
6 Opinion No. 41/2019, para. 33. See also European Court of Human Rights, Mooren v. Germany,
Application No. 11364/03, Judgment, 9 July 2009, para. 106; and Brogan et al. v. United Kingdom,
Applications No. 11209 /84, No. 1234/84, No. 11266/84 and No. 11386/85, Judgment, 29 November
1988, para. 65.
7 Opinion No. 51/2017, para. 35.
8 Opinion No. 6/2016, para. 48. See also opinions No. 43/2011 and No. 12/2014.
9 Human Rights Committee, De Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 6.7. See also
opinions No. 37/1994 and No. 19/1999.
10 Opinion No. 31/2023, para. 102. See also opinion No. 62/2012, para. 39.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
5
that his treatment stems from the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression and
forms part of a wider crackdown in Egypt designed to silence dissent.
c.
Category III
28.
The source submits that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention is arbitrary under category III,
as his right to a fair trial has been violated.
29.
The source argues that there is no indication that the Egyptian authorities carried out
any individualized determination of whether detention was reasonable and necessary in
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s case, as is required under article 9 (3) of the Covenant.11 It claims that
the authorities did not pay any attention to his individual circumstances nor examine whether
any alternatives to detention were appropriate. Far from viewing his detention pending trial
as “exceptional”, the source argues that the authorities appear to have regarded it as routine.
30.
The source further claims that the requirements of article 14 (3) of the Covenant have
not been satisfied in a number of ways in the present case, as Mr. Abd el-Fattah has been
prevented from being able to prepare his defence.12 The authorities suspended prison visits,
with no other means of private communication with his lawyers being offered. They also
regularly refused his lawyer permission to visit him in detention following the referral of his
case to the Emergency State Security Court and prior to his conviction.
31.
The source points out that Mr. Abd el-Fattah and his lawyers were, in addition, denied
access to or a copy of the case file, leaving them unable to properly review the documentary
evidence against him.13 No indictment was ever issued, either; he was not provided with a
clear, detailed and precise description of the facts against him and the requisite correlation
between indictment and conviction was entirely absent. Moreover, the authorities reportedly
took the extraordinary step of arresting Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s lawyer.
32.
The source refers to article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant to assert the right of accused
persons to be present at trial and to defend themselves, whether in person or via legal
assistance of their own choosing. In Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s case, the source points out that he
was precluded by the Emergency State Security Court from presenting any form of defence
at trial.
33.
The source argues that, as a matter of international human rights doctrine, courts
should take into account pre-conviction detention and credit their sentence accordingly.14 Not
doing so is a violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant, which provides that no one shall be
liable to be punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted. In
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s case, not only were his two years of pretrial detention not deducted from
his five-year sentence, his two months’ detention during trial was not deducted either and the
five-year sentence did not start running until January 2022. The result is that, if and when he
is finally released in January 2027, he will have spent well over seven years in prison for an
offence that, under Egyptian law, carries a maximum prison term of five years.
34.
The source, moreover, points out that, contrary to article 14 (5) of the Covenant,
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s conviction by the Emergency State Security Court is not subject to
appeal. Only the President of Egypt purportedly has the authority to quash the verdict or to
commute his sentence.
35.
Furthermore, the source alleges that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was regularly denied the right
to be visited by and to correspond with his family and to communicate adequately with the
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and opinions No. 56/2017,
para. 9; and No. 62/2017, para. 41.
12 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Ajavon v. Benin, Application No. 013/2017, Judgment,
29 March 2019, paras. 154 and 155; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007),
paras. 32 and 34; and Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, principles 11, 15, 17 and 18. See also opinion No. 10/2008, para. 31;
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ramírez v. Guatemala, Judgment, 20 June 2005, para. 67;
and European Court of Human Rights Sadak et al. v. Turkey (No. 1), Applications No. 29900/96,
No. 29901/96, No. 29902/96 and No. 29903/96, Judgment, 17 July 2001, paras 43–59.
13 Opinions No. 46/2011, paras. 12, 13 and 23; and No. 48/2017, paras. 15 and 46.
14 E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.3, paras. 72–74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
6
GE.25-07106
outside world, contrary to principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and rules 43 (3) and 58 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela
Rules). It argues that conditions of detention and health conditions similar to those in the
present case have been considered previously by the Working Group to have prevented the
detained individual from being able to mount an effective defence, in violation of
article 14 (3) of the Covenant.15
36.
The source also maintains that, contrary to the requirement in article 14 (1) of the
Covenant for trials to be adjudicated by an independent and impartial tribunal, Mr. Abd
el-Fattah was tried before the Emergency State Security Court, a special emergency court,
without compelling reason. This enabled exceptional procedures and rules to apply to his
case that did not comply with ordinary standards of justice. 16 Moreover, the state of
emergency, on which the Egyptian authorities seemingly relied to try Mr. Abd el-Fattah
before that court, was lifted just days after his case had been referred to that court. The source
further posits that the Emergency State Security Court was neither independent nor impartial.
Its composition is determined by the President, who appoints its judges and has the power to
alter its decisions.17
37.
The source submits that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was imprisoned despite there now being a
substantial body of international law focused on promoting non-custodial measures as an
alternative to imprisonment. A prison sentence is therefore never appropriate for defamation
or similar offences.18
d.
Category V
38.
The source argues that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention is arbitrary under category V as
it is the result of discrimination on the grounds of political opinion, specifically, his criticism
of the Egyptian authorities.
39.
The source contends that, when assessing whether there has been a case of deprivation
of liberty on discriminatory grounds for the purposes of category V, the Working Group
considers various factors, including whether other persons with similarly distinguishing
characteristics have also been targeted and whether the context suggests that the authorities
have detained a person on discriminatory grounds.19
40.
The source also submits that, according to the Working Group, the references to
“political or other opinion” and “other status” in article 26 of the Covenant include a person’s
status as a human rights defender.20 In addition, the Human Rights Committee has made clear
that the right to equality before the law under article 26 prohibits discrimination in any field
regulated and protected by public authorities.21 The lawful exercise of one’s profession is one
such area in which discrimination is prohibited.
41.
Applying the above principles, the source concludes that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s
detention constitutes discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. Furthermore, his
incarceration constitutes discrimination on the grounds of his profession, namely his roles as
a writer, blogger, political activist and human rights defender.
(b)
Response from the Government
42.
On 9 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 7 February 2025, detailed information on Mr. Abd
15 See opinion No. 60/2022.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comments No. 13 (1984), para. 4, and No. 32 (2007), paras. 18
and 19; and Human Rights Committee, Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea (CCPR/C/49/D/468/1991),
para. 9.4.
17 Emergency Law No. 162 of 1958, art. 7.
18 See United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules).
19 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
20 Opinion No. 45/2016, para. 44.
21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 18 (1989), para. 12.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
7
el-Fattah’s current situation and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued
detention and its compatibility with the obligations of Egypt under international human rights
law and, in particular, with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working
Group called upon the Government to ensure his physical and mental integrity.
43.
On 3 February 2025, the Government requested an extension of the time limit, in
accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work, and was granted a
new deadline of 7 March 2025.
44.
In its response, received by the Working Group on 6 March 2025, the Government
stresses that Egypt is committed to guaranteeing to all individuals under its jurisdiction the
rights enshrined in international conventions to which it is a party. It also provides effective
means of redress to those who claim violations of their rights.
45.
The Government argues that Egypt has been subjected to serious terrorism threats and
that terrorist groups have increasingly exploited the Internet to disseminate their propaganda.
It underlines that the national counter-terrorism strategy of Egypt is based on the rule of law,
human rights and the principles of international cooperation and that some restrictions on
freedoms may be justified, if those freedoms are misused to incite discrimination or violence.
The Government stresses, moreover, that, as in all democratic societies, there is no freedom
to commit crimes in Egypt. All offences are investigated and tried independently and
impartially and no one is investigated unless there is sufficient evidence of the commission
of an offence punishable under the Criminal Code.
46.
The Government claims that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s arrest on 29 September 2019 as part
of case No. 1356 of 2019 was authorized by a prosecutor and concerned meetings in which
he had participated aimed at escalating hostile activity against the State by spreading rumours
and false information, providing financial support, recruiting and exploiting social
networking sites to those ends. He was accompanied by six lawyers during his interrogation
by the Public Prosecution. The Public Prosecution physically examined him to ensure that
there were no signs of injury or physical ill-treatment, which Mr. Abd el-Fattah himself also
purportedly confirmed. The Public Prosecution confronted him with the accusations against
him and he was allowed to present his defence, upon which he was charged, in line with the
international obligations of Egypt, notably Security Council resolution 1373 (2001).
47.
The Government states that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was remanded into pretrial detention
in accordance with articles 134 and 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision to
renew his detention was within the discretion of the competent judicial authority after it had
heard arguments from both the Public Prosecution and the defence, and in line with the
United Nations strategy to combat terrorism and Security Council resolution 1674 (2006).
48.
The Government further explains that the Public Prosecution launched a separate
investigation (case No. 1228 of 2021) in which Mr. Abd el-Fattah was accused of deliberately
disseminating false news online that would notably weaken State authority, harm national
interests, disturb public security and spread fear. He was tried without being remanded in
custody, with all fair trial rights being afforded him: he appeared in person and was assisted
by his lawyers and able to present a defence. On 20 December 2021, Mr. Abd el-Fattah was
sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour, a fine of 200 Egyptian pounds and
expenses, the verdict being ratified on 3 January 2022. This conviction therefore brought to
an end his pretrial detention for case No. 1356 of 2019. He is currently serving his sentence,
which will be completed on 3 January 2027, at Wadi el Natrun Prison.
49.
The Government notes that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s lawyer submitted a request to deduct
the period served in pretrial detention for case No. 1356 of 2019 from the sentence imposed
in cases No. 1228 of 2021 and No. 1986 of 2021. The request was rejected, however, for not
meeting the conditions of articles 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
article 617 of the Public Prosecution instructions.
50.
The Government explains that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, measures were
adopted in detention centres to prevent the spread of the virus, including an electronic remand
renewal system, which allowed judges to communicate with accused individuals through a
secure closed-circuit television network linking courts and some detention centres.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
8
GE.25-07106
51.
With regard to Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s hunger strike, the Government states that a
specialized medical committee concluded, after examining him, that he had decided to
consume sufficient daily calories to maintain his health. His vital signs were all within normal
range, indicating that his limited food and liquid intake was not affecting his health. The
Government points out that he currently receives complete rations.
52.
The Government submits that officials from the Ministry of the Interior, the Public
Prosecution and the Human Rights Committee of the House of Representatives periodically
visit prisons to monitor conditions and ensure the implementation of any measures imposed
by the Public Prosecution or the judicial authorities. The Government details four separate
visits to inspect Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s prison conditions, in March 2021, April 2021, July 2022
and November 2022, all of which found various aspects of his detention to be adequate,
including his relationship with prison officials, his safety, the availability of food and water,
visits and the monitoring of his health following his hunger strike.
53.
In addition, the Public Prosecution, as part of its broader mandate to supervise prisons,
inspected Wadi El Natrun Prison on several occasions, most recently on 19 October 2024.
The wards were inspected for cleanliness, privacy and overcrowding. Inmates who were
asked about their living conditions stated that they enjoyed all their rights and had no
complaints. The Public Prosecution also reviewed the healthcare facilities in the prison and
the areas for prayer, vocational training, food preparation and exercise.
54.
The Government states that Mr. Abd el-Fattah receives regular visits and that he was
allowed to send and receive correspondence from his family when visits were suspended
during the pandemic. He otherwise received 13 visits between 1 May 2024 and 31 January
2025.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
55.
The source, in its additional comments, argues that the Government fails to address a
number of issues raised, in particular the various fair trial violations alleged, and that no arrest
warrant was produced and no indictment ever issued, that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was held in
pretrial detention for nearly two years before being notified of the basis for the sole offence
for which he was convicted, that the offence for which he was convicted is extremely vague,
that his sentence is excessive and that his incarceration results from his peaceful exercise of
his right to freedom of expression. The source submits, moreover, that the Government has
provided no evidence that the authorities ever considered alternatives to detention.
56.
The source disputes the Government’s position that the non-deduction of the period
spent in pretrial detention from Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s prison sentence is because he was
arrested on 29 September 2019 for terrorism and misusing social media offences alone,
whereas the investigation for spreading false news (the offence of which he was convicted)
was launched only later, in 2021. It emphasizes that his detention on 29 September 2019 was
on suspicion of four offences, which included spreading false news.
57.
The source argues that, in any event, this situation is an example of the Egyptian
authorities resorting to the abusive practice referred to as “rotation”, whereby individuals
held for political reasons are accused of identical or similar charges in “new” cases in order
to detain them indefinitely.
58.
With regard to the Government’s assertion that Mr. Abd el-Fattah receives regular
family visits, the source argues that this misses the point. Its core complaints in terms of
visitation are that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s lawyer had only very limited access to him following
his detention and that his application to visit Mr. Abd el-Fattah just before his conviction was
refused. These complaints, according to the source, are not addressed by the Government.
59.
The source further notes that the Government fails to deal with the relevant arguments
on the conditions of detention, which are that, while he was detained at the Tora II prison,
Mr. Abd el-Fattah was denied daily exercise, reading materials and adequate bedding, and
that his deteriorating health as of September 2021, because of his conditions of detention,
prevented him from mounting an effective defence. The Government makes no mention
either of the welcome parade upon his arrival at the Tora II prison.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
9
60.
The source underlines that, while the Government discusses at length the threat of
terrorism in Egypt, and Mr. Abd el-Fattah was initially arrested on suspicion of terrorism
offences, he was not charged with nor tried for any of these offences and his conviction relates
only to the offence of spreading false news.
2.
Discussion
61.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
62.
In determining whether Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
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.22
(a)
Category I
63.
The source’ submits that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention is arbitrary under category I
because no warrant was produced at the time of his arrest, nor was he provided with any
information about the reasons for the arrest or the allegations against him.
64.
The Government responds that the arrest was authorized by the prosecution and
concerned meetings in which he participated aimed at escalating hostile activity against the
State. It further states that he was presented before the Public Prosecution for interrogation
with six of his lawyers present, at which point he was confronted with all the accusations
against him. Relevantly, however, the Government does not deny the source’s claim that
Mr. Abd el-Fattah was neither presented with an arrest warrant, nor any information
regarding the reasons for his arrest at the time of the arrest. Moreover, it does not specify
when he was presented before the Public Prosecution to be confronted with the accusations
against him, making it impossible for the Working Group to ascertain the lapse of time
between his arrest and his receipt of the details of the allegations against him.
65.
The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (2) of the Covenant,
anyone who is arrested must not only be immediately informed of the reasons for arrest but
also promptly informed of any charges against them thereafter.23 Moreover, for a deprivation
of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the
arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the
case. 24 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent
document).25 In particular, the authorities must provide enough factual specifics to indicate
the substance of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of the alleged
victim.26 The right to be presented with an arrest warrant is inherent to the right to liberty and
security of person and to the prohibition of arbitrary detention under articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
66.
Here, it is evident that the Government failed to meet its obligations under article 9 (1)
and (2) of the Covenant. The Working Group accepts the source’s unrefuted submission that
Mr. Abd el-Fattah was not presented with an arrest warrant. It also accepts that he was only
notified two years after his arrest of the basis for the sole offence of which he was ultimately
convicted, namely, his sharing of the Facebook post. In addition, the Government has not
rebutted the claim that the terrorist organization to which he was accused of belonging
remains unnamed, lending additional weight to the conclusion that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was
22 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
23 Opinion 77/2020, para. 59; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27.
24 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23; and opinions No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59; No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
26 Opinions No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59; No. 85/2021, para. 69; and No. 8/2024, para. 42. See also
Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
10
GE.25-07106
not adequately informed of the reasons for his arrest, let alone of the charges against him, in
a prompt manner.
67.
The Government moreover does not substantively respond to the source’s allegations
regarding the gaps in court hearings to review Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s pretrial detention, save to
say that he was remanded into custody in accordance the Code of Criminal Procedure and
that the decision to renew his detention was within the discretion of the competent judicial
authority and in line with the national counter-terrorism strategy. Although the Government
states in general terms that an electronic remand system was implemented during the
pandemic to allow judges to communicate with detained individuals, it does not specify how
this actually took effect in relation to the successive renewals of Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s pretrial
detention, nor does it provide any information to counter the submission that Mr. Abd
el-Fattah first appeared before a judge on 18 February 2020.
68.
The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
anyone who is arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a
judge or other judicial authority. The Human Rights Committee has stated that 48 hours is
ordinarily sufficient to satisfy this requirement and that any delay longer than 48 hours must
remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.27
69.
The Government failed to meet this obligation under article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
since Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s first court appearance is stated to have occurred five months after
his arrest. Moreover, as the Working Group has previously held, the renewal of a detention
by a prosecutor rather than an independent judicial authority, as was the case during those
five months, cannot be considered to meet the requirement of article 9 (3).28 Indeed, any form
of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by or subject to the effective control of a
judicial or other authority under the law, whose status and tenure should afford the strongest
possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence, in accordance with
principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.29
70.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant further provides that pretrial detention must be the
exception and not the rule. It should be ordered for as short a time as possible and based on
an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary, taking into account all
the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the
recurrence of a crime.30 Courts must also examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention,
such as bail, electronic bracelets or other conditions, would render detention unnecessary.31
71.
In the present case, the Working Group has received no information allowing it to
conclude that individualized determinations underpinned the successive renewals of Mr. Abd
el-Fattah’s detention over the course of two years. The Government’s abstract contention that
those renewals fell within the discretion of the competent authority are not sufficient to
overturn the presumption established by the source that they took place seemingly
automatically and, in at least one instance, without Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s lawyers being able
to make representations. 32 In any event, near automatic extensions of detention by a
prosecutor do not amount to regular reviews by an independent body to decide whether
continued detention is justified in accordance with article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
72.
For all these reasons, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention
lacks a legal basis and is therefore arbitrary under category I.
27 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32 and 33.
28 Opinion No. 77/2020, para. 63.
29 Opinion No. 93/2017, para. 44.
30 See, for example, opinions No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 5/2021, para. 43;
No. 6/2021, para. 50; and No. 57/2021, para. 56. See also Human Rights Committee, general
comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
31 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
32 Opinion No. 41/2019, para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
11
(b)
Category II
73.
The source contends that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention is arbitrary under category II
since it results from the violation of his freedom of opinion and expression and his role as a
blogger, writer and political activist who has been critical of the Egyptian authorities. The
Government does not directly respond to this argument. Instead, it expounds the country’s
anti-terrorism policy and argues that, as in all democratic societies, there is no freedom to
commit crimes in Egypt. Although it claims that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was charged with hostile
activity against the State and subsequently convicted in a separate case of disseminating false
news, it provides no details of the factual elements of those offences and how they would
amount to criminal activity.
74.
The Working Group recalls that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right,
guaranteed in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the
Covenant. It protects even that which may shock, offend or disturb or which may insult an
individual or group or criticize an institution.33 Moreover, the Working Group applies a
heightened standard of review in cases in which freedom of expression and opinion is
restricted or where human rights defenders are involved.
75.
Under article 19 (3) of the Covenant, any restriction imposed on the right to freedom
of expression must be provided by law, designed to achieve a legitimate aim (namely the
protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals) and imposed in
accordance with the requirements of necessity and proportionality.34 The Government has
not demonstrated in any manner how the exercise of freedom of expression in the case at
hand posed a threat that could be justified by reference to those conditions.
76.
Mr. Abd el-Fattah has been a prominent activist in Egypt since the Arab Spring. The
Working Group is extremely concerned that he has been detained repeatedly for the better
part of the past 17 years on charges and convictions that are similar and centred on activities
related to his freedom of expression. It recalls that general prohibitions on the dissemination
of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, such as false news, are incompatible
with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression and should be
abolished.35
77.
The Working Group notes, furthermore, that the Human Rights Committee has
referred to the excessively broad and vague definitions of terrorism laid down in some of the
legislation of Egypt and has expressed its concern at reports that such laws are used, in
combination with restrictive legislation on fundamental freedoms, to silence actual or
perceived critics of the Government, including peaceful protesters, lawyers, journalists,
political opponents and human rights defenders.36
78.
As a result of the above considerations, and in the absence of any information on how
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s actions fell within any of the restrictions to freedom of expression carved
out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the Working Group finds that he was deprived of his
liberty for exercising his right to freedom of expression, making his deprivation of liberty
arbitrary under category II. In addition, the Working Group refers the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism for appropriate action.
(c)
Category III
79.
Given its finding that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
Nevertheless, as the trial did take place and Mr. Abd el-Fattah was convicted, the Working
Group will examine the source’s submissions concerning the denial of his fair trial rights.
33 See opinions No. 7/2008, No. 35/2012, No. 46/2013, No. 4/2019 and No. 33/2019.
34 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 21–36. See also, for example,
opinions No. 8/2020, paras. 62 and 63; and No. 52/2024, para. 90.
35 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda,
para. 2 (a). See also opinions No. 46/2020, para. 54; and No. 77/2020, para. 73.
36 CCPR/C/EGY/CO/5, para. 13.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
12
GE.25-07106
80.
The source claims that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s right to counsel was violated when the
authorities failed to propose other means of private communication to allow Mr. Abd
el-Fattah to meet with his lawyers after visits had been suspended. In addition, the Emergency
State Security Court regularly refused his lawyer permission to visit him in detention and he
and his lawyers were denied access to the case file. Significantly, no indictment was ever
issued and Mr. Abd el-Fattah was allegedly precluded from presenting a defence at trial.
81.
The Government’s response to these submissions is limited to generalities: it states
merely that all fair trial rights were afforded Mr. Abd el-Fattah, in that he appeared in person,
was assisted by his lawyers and was able to present a defence. It otherwise presents no
information to counter any of the specific violations alleged by the source.
82.
The Working Group recalls, firstly, that the right to be informed promptly and in detail
of the nature and cause of the charges is enshrined in article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. The
Human Rights Committee has held that the specific requirements of this provision may be
met by stating the charge either orally – if later confirmed in writing – or in writing, provided
that the information indicates both the law and the alleged facts on which the charge is
based.37 Here, the Government has not countered the submission that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was
never presented with a written indictment, let alone one that sufficiently detailed the law and
alleged facts on which the charges were based. Indeed, it does not challenge the allegation
that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was only informed two years after his arrest that the sharing of a
Facebook post was the alleged act that had led to the charge of disseminating false
information. The Working Group accordingly concludes that the Government failed to meet
its obligation under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant.
83.
The Working Group, secondly, underlines that access to counsel is a right enshrined
in article 14 (3) of the Covenant, principles 11 (2), 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, rule 61 (1) of
the Nelson Mandela Rules and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
84.
Legal representation is a core component of the right to a fair trial and serves to ensure
the principle of equality of arms.38 Any denial of access to lawyers substantially undermines
and compromises an individual’s capacity to defend him or herself in any judicial
proceedings and the fairness of the proceedings under articles 10 and 11 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. An important element of this right is that counsel should be
able to meet their clients in private, in conditions that fully respect the confidentiality of their
communications. Furthermore, lawyers should be able to advise their clients without
restrictions, influence, pressure or undue interference from any quarter.39
85.
The Working Group finds that the Government has failed to rebut any of the prima
facie credible allegations by the source with regard to the impediments that Mr. Abd el-Fattah
faced in communicating with his lawyers. The Working Group is troubled by the claim that
his lawyer was arrested with him, which could suggest an underlying effort to intimidate
Mr. Abd el-Fattah and the legal profession more broadly40 and thereby hamper his defence.
While the Working Group notes the Government’s submission that Mr. Abd el-Fattah was
accompanied by six lawyers when he first appeared before the prosecution after his arrest, it
does not consider this to offset the otherwise serious impediments that he faced in
communicating with legal counsel during the remainder of his detention.
86.
The Working Group further finds that the inability to access or obtain their own copy
of the case file impeded Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s counsel from effectively representing him and
preparing his defence. The Government has provided no explanation for why this access
would have been restricted. As the Working Group has previously indicated, every individual
deprived of liberty has the right to access the material related to the detention or presented to
the court by the State, in order to preserve the equality of arms. This includes information
that may assist the detainee in arguing that the detention is not lawful or that the reasons for
37 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 31.
38 See opinion No. 35/2019.
39 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.
40 Opinion No. 61/2024, para. 55.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
13
the detention no longer apply. 41 The right to access documents and other evidence is
understood to be an element of the right to “adequate facilities” under article 14 (3) (b) of the
Covenant and includes the ability to make copies of case file materials.42 Consequently, the
Working Group finds that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) were not
respected.
87.
These violations to Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s right to a defence are further compounded by
the fact that, as argued by the source, he was precluded by the Emergency State Security
Court from presenting any form of defence at trial. The Working Group is not satisfied that
the Government’s cursory statement in this regard in any way refutes the source’s allegation.
The Working Group accordingly concludes that a violation of Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s right to
defend himself in person or through legal assistance, in accordance with article 14 (3) (d) of
the Covenant, has been prima facie established.
88.
The Working Group notes that a consequence of the fact that the trial was held before
the Emergency State Security Court is that the conviction is not subject to appeal. As the
Working Group has previously held, everyone convicted of a crime has the right to have their
conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.43 In the absence of
any rebuttal from the Government, the Working Group accordingly finds that article 14 (5)
of the Covenant was also violated.
89.
With regard to the source’s contention that the two years that Mr. Abd el-Fattah spent
in pretrial detention should be deducted from his five-year sentence, the Government
responds by referring to three separate court cases involving Mr. Abd el-Fattah and
essentially stating that the five-year conviction was for a different case than the one for which
he has been detained for two years. The source contests this by pointing out that Mr. Abd
el-Fattah was detained on 29 September 2019 on suspicion of four offences, which included
that of spreading false news for which he was ultimately convicted. It was only on 17 August
2021, however, when the two-year time limit for pretrial detention under Egyptian law was
about to expire, that he was notified of the purported basis for the offence of spreading false
news. Certainly, from the Government’s own submissions, it would indeed appear that his
arrest on 29 September 2019 included the allegation of spreading rumours and false
information. The Working Group does not have sufficient information to be able to determine
precisely which offence and which facts pertained to which of the three cases identified by
the Government. This, in itself, however, lends credence to the argument that Mr. Abd
el-Fattah may have been put through a so-called rotation – a practice about which the
Working Group has already expressed its concerns – by facing new and similar charges with
the purpose of extending his detention.44
90.
Given all of the above, the Working Group finds that the numerous violations of
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to render his deprivation of
liberty arbitrary under category III.
(d)
Category V
91.
The source submits that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s detention is arbitrary under category V
in that it is the result of discrimination on the grounds of his political opinion, specifically,
his perceived opposition to the Government. The Government does not directly respond to
this argument.
92.
The Working Group has already established that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s arrest and
detention were arbitrary under category II and considers that the source has presented
credible information of the persecution that Mr. Abd el-Fattah has suffered over many years
41 Opinions No. 71/2022, para. 90; and No. 44/2024, para. 99; and 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 12 and guideline 13.
42 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 33. See also Human Rights
Committee, Zhirnov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/109/D/1795/2008).
43 Opinion No. 83/2021, para. 85.
44 Opinions No. 34/2022, para. 87; No. 53/2022, para. 73; No. 60/2022, para. 74; No. 20/2023, para. 75;
and No. 20/2024, para. 63.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
14
GE.25-07106
because of his political activism. It notes with concern that the Working Group already found,
in 2016, that a previous episode of arrest and detention to which he was subjected was
arbitrary, and which it linked to a pattern of systemic and widespread arbitrary detentions of
individuals in the context of peaceful protests. 45
93.
The Working Group accordingly concludes that Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s arrest and
detention were on discriminatory grounds and a result of his political or other opinions and
his status as a human rights defender, 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
94.
The Working Group notes the allegations by the source regarding the conditions of
detention experienced by Mr. Abd el-Fattah, including what it refers to as a welcome parade
upon his arrival at the Tora II prison, which, it states, led to multiple complaints being filed
on his behalf. While the Government provides details of prison inspections that it carried out,
including one on 11 March 2021 following a complaint by Mr. Abd el-Fattah, it does not
address the allegation of a welcome parade.
95.
The Working Group acknowledges the measures taken by the Government to monitor
Mr. Abd el-Fattah’s health, particularly during his hunger strike. It takes the opportunity to
remind the Government of its obligation under article 10 (1) of the Covenant to ensure that
all persons deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person, and of the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
96.
The present opinion is one of several brought before the Working Group in recent
years concerning arbitrary detention in Egypt.46 The Working Group remains concerned that
this might indicate a widespread or systematic practice of arbitrary detention in Egypt,
including through the unlawful practice of rotation, whereby release is ordered but never
effected and new charges are brought against the person concerned.47 The Working Group
underlines that States have the obligation not to engage in acts that could constitute crimes
against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed.
3.
Disposition
97.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam Abd el-Fattah Hamed, being
in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 10, 14, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
98.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Abd el-Fattah 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.
99.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Abd el-Fattah immediately and accord
him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
100.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Abd
el-Fattah and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
45 Opinion No. 6/2016, para. 53.
46 See, for example, opinions No. 12/2023, No. 20/2023, No. 31/2023, No. 36/2023, No. 40/2023,
No. 70/2023, No. 8/2024, No. 17/2024 and No. 20/2024.
47 Opinions No. 20/2023, para. 75; No. 70/2023, para. 87; and No. 20/2024, paras. 63 and 75.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/23
GE.25-07106
15
101.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
102.
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. Abd el-Fattah has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Abd
el-Fattah;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Abd
el-Fattah’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 Egypt with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
103.
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.
104.
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.
105.
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.48
[Adopted on 7 April 2025]
48 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.