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.25-08317 (E) 110625 110625
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. 25/2025 concerning Oqba Alaa Labib Hashad
and Seif el-Din Khaled el-Din Fateen (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 1 March 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Oqba Alaa Labib
Hashad and Seif el-Din Khaled el-Din Fateen. The Government submitted a late response
on 31 May 2024. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
General Assembly
Distr.: General
12 June 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
2
GE.25-08317
disability or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Oqba Alaa Labib Hashad is an Egyptian national born on 10 January 1997. At the
time of his arrest, Mr. Hashad was a student at the Faculty of Commerce of Sadat
University and lived in a student residence in Sadat City, Al-Minufiyah Governorate.
5.
The source notes that Mr. Hashad has a disability, having had to undergo the
amputation of one of his legs at the age of 6. He is unable to walk without a prosthetic limb.
6.
Seif el-Din Khaled el-Din Fateen is an Egyptian national born on 11 February 1971.
At the moment of his arrest, Mr. Fateen was the Director of the Environmental Engineering
Programme at Zewail University and a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Cairo
University and the American University in Cairo. He is a former adviser to the Ministry of
Higher Education under the presidency of Mohamed Morsi.
(i)
Context
7.
The source submits that the two cases contained in the present communication
exemplify a crackdown by the authorities against the remaining members of the political
opposition, as well as human rights defenders and their families. Both cases showcase a
current pattern of warrantless arrests, followed by enforced disappearances, torture, medical
negligence and indefinite pretrial detention as a way of countering political opposition in
the country.
8.
Reportedly, authorities have increasingly used pretrial detention not as an
exceptional legal measure but as a tool against human rights defenders, journalists and
individuals perceived to be critical of the Government.
9.
The source submits that the provisions of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Code
concerning pretrial detention are applied in a manner that enables indefinite detention.
These provisions allow for pretrial detention periods of up to two years and provide limited,
if any, effective means for detainees to challenge the continuation of their detention.
(ii)
Arrest and detention of Mr. Hashad
10.
The source submits that, on 20 May 2019, at approximately 11 p.m., national
security officers (some in uniform and others in civilian attire) broke into Mr. Hashad’s
student residence in Sadat City, Al-Minufiyah Governorate. Following a violent search of
the flat, the officers proceeded to arrest Mr. Hashad, along with all the other students who
were present in the flat. Reportedly, the officers did not present a search or an arrest
warrant.
11.
The students who were arrested at the same time as Mr. Hashad were released in the
following hours or days. Mr. Hashad therefore appears to have been the sole target of the
arrest.
12.
According to the source, Mr. Hashad was forcibly disappeared to an unknown
location for nearly two and a half months, from the date of his arrest on 20 May 2019 to
4 August 2019. During this period, he was subjected to multiple forms of physical and
psychological torture by two national security officers. Reportedly, the two officers
repeatedly stripped Mr. Hashad of his clothes and hung him from the ceiling of the room,
beat him, verbally insulted him and electrocuted him on the amputated part of his leg and
his genital organs. He was threatened with the arrest of and harm to his family members.
Furthermore, an officer tied a rope around his neck, dragged him and insulted him.
13.
Allegedly, the purpose of the torture was to coerce Mr. Hashad to confess to the
charges against him, namely, that he had joined a banned group and participated in
demonstrations.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
3
14.
The source highlights that one of Mr. Hashad’s family members is a prominent
lawyer, human rights defender and former prisoner of conscience who fled Egypt in 2019
and is currently living abroad, where he continues his advocacy work, exposing human
rights violations in Egyptian prisons. Since his arrest, Mr. Hashad has been interrogated
three times by the prison authorities with the intention of pressuring Mr. Hashad’s family
member to stop his advocacy activities and human rights work.
15.
Following his reappearance on 4 August 2019, Mr. Hashad was brought before the
prosecutor in Shibīn al-Kawm under case No. 7769 of 2019, known in the media as the
“Ashmun Case”. According to the source, Mr. Hashad’s enforced disappearance was not
acknowledged by the authorities as his arrest was recorded to have taken place on 4 August
2019, reflecting the date of his first appearance before the prosecutor rather than the actual
date of his arrest. Furthermore, it is reported that Mr. Hashad’s testimonies regarding the
torture he had been subjected to were largely ignored.
16.
Mr. Hashad reportedly appeared for the second time before the prosecutor later in
August 2019. On that opportunity, Mr. Hashad was able to see his lawyer for the first time.
Mr. Hashad’s lawyer submitted requests to visit him in prison, and the prosecutor approved
the request. However, the prison administration reportedly refused to implement the order
and, as a consequence, Mr. Hashad has only been able to see his lawyer during the
detention renewal sessions, which occur every 45 days in front of a judge.
17.
The source notes that Mr. Hashad was brought before a judge for the first time after
he appeared before the prosecutor for the third time, in or after September 2019. However,
the exact date is unknown.
18.
Reportedly, in January 2021, the human rights defender who is Mr. Hashad’s family
member released a human rights report and, a week later, the head of prison investigations
told Mr. Hashad that he would be punished as a result of his family member’s human rights
work and for spreading lies about the country. The source states that the head of prison
investigations ordered Mr. Hashad’s prosthetic limb to be taken away from him, only
allowing him to wear it for detention renewal sessions.
19.
On 5 March 2021, during a routine inspection, Mr. Hashad reportedly complained
about being prevented from using his prosthetic limb and how that had severely affected his
everyday life in prison. However, the next day, the head of prison investigations reportedly
threatened Mr. Hashad with punishment for complaining to the prison’s authorities, and
then slapped him on the face and ordered his head to be shaved and for all his personal
belongings to be taken from his cell.
20.
Reportedly, when Mr. Hashad received his prosthetic limb back after several
months, it was in very bad condition and needed constant maintenance. According to the
source, on 7 August 2022, his prosthetic limb became unusable, and Mr. Hashad’s family
repaired it. When the family went to the prison, the authorities reportedly refused to give
Mr. Hashad the repaired prosthetic limb, and after several hours of the family’s efforts to
convince them, the prison authorities allegedly dismantled and broke it. Despite this,
Mr. Hashad continued using his broken prosthetic limb because there was no alternative.
21.
The source submits that the human rights defender who is Mr. Hashad’s family
member posted on social media about the incident of January 2021, which had a negative
impact on Mr. Hashad. Reportedly, Mr. Hashad was transferred to Wadi al-Natrun prison
without his prosthetic limb and had to move on one foot while carrying his personal
belongings. A month later, his family was reportedly able to visit him for the first time.
22.
Mr. Hashad and his family requested that he be sent to a specialized hospital to have
a new prosthetic limb made. This request was rejected by the prison authorities.
23.
The source notes that an Egyptian charitable organization gifted Mr. Hashad a
prosthetic limb, but that it is not suitable for him, as it is far smaller than his leg. Currently,
he is being forced to use a prosthetic limb that might cause serious damage and a permanent
disability in his spine and pelvis. Complaints about Mr. Hashad’s health condition have
been addressed to the Attorney General and the President of the National Council for
Human Rights (Egypt). However, no response has been received.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
4
GE.25-08317
24.
The source reports that Mr. Hashad obtained a release order on 20 February 2024
and, on 22 February 2024, he was transferred from Wadi al-Natrun prison to Ashmūn
police station to complete the procedures for his release, as he is not accused of other
crimes. However, the source reports that the release order was not implemented.
25.
On 23 February 2024, Mr. Hashad was subjected to enforced disappearance for nine
days, until 2 March 2024. His family enquired about him at Ashmūn police station, but the
police officers there denied knowing his whereabouts.
(iii)
Arrest and detention of Mr. Fateen
26.
According to the source, on 14 November 2018, at around 1 a.m., national security
officers, some in civilian clothes and others in uniform, entered Mr. Fateen’s home,
proceeded to arrest him without presenting a search or arrest warrant and seized four
laptops, five cameras and a phone.
27.
Reportedly, Mr. Fateen was subjected to enforced disappearance for nearly nine
months, from his arrest on 14 November 2018 until 5 August 2019, during which time he
was subjected to physical and psychological torture. It is submitted that it was later revealed
that Mr. Fateen had been detained by national security officers in the State security
headquarters in El-Sheikh Zayed City.
28.
Throughout the period of his enforced disappearance, officers called Mr. Fateen by a
number instead of using his name, beat him and electrocuted him on sensitive areas and his
left arm – especially during times of interrogation. During that time, officers also covered
his eyes and tied him up during the day. He was tied up with an iron chain during the night.
Mr. Fateen was regularly interrogated and asked questions about his life and his role when
he was an adviser to the Ministry of Higher Education during the Government of a former
President. From time to time, a doctor would come to give him painkillers so that he would
be able to complete the interrogation sessions.
29.
Mr. Fateen suffers from high blood pressure and chest pains due to the torture,
ill-treatment and excessive stress he was subjected to during his enforced disappearance.
On 26 June 2019, Mr. Fateen’s family sent complaints about his enforced disappearance to
the Ministry of the Interior and to the National Council for Human Rights. However, these
authorities have not replied.
30.
Mr. Fateen’s enforced disappearance was not acknowledged by the authorities: his
arrest was recorded to have taken place on 5 August 2019, the day of his appearance before
the Supreme State Security Prosecutor. It is reported that Mr. Fateen was accused of joining
a terrorist group under case No. 930/2019, known in the media as the “Hope Cell Case”,
and that he had access to a lawyer at this time.
31.
Also on 5 August 2019, he was reportedly transferred to the new central prison in
Giza, known as “Kilo 10 and a half prison”, where he remained in pretrial detention for
almost five months.
32.
It is not known whether Mr. Fateen has appeared before a court. However, the
source submits that, taking into account the nature of similar cases and the timeline for the
appearance before the prosecution and the court of the accused in those cases, it is believed
that Mr. Fateen must have appeared before a court between late September and early
October 2019.
33.
In December 2019, Mr. Fateen was transferred to Al-Qanater prison, where he is
currently still being held in pretrial detention. The source notes that the length of Mr.
Fateen’s pretrial detention exceeds the legal limit for pretrial detention of two years
stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code of Egypt. The source submits that Mr. Fateen is
being subjected to retaliation and reprisals for his previous role as an adviser to the Ministry
of Higher Education under a former President.
34.
The source notes that Mr. Fateen is examined by a doctor whenever needed, but that
the prison authorities do not provide medication; they ask his family to provide it during
visits. In addition, Mr. Fateen’s conditions of detention are poor, with limited ventilation
and substandard hygiene.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
5
35.
Lastly, Mr. Fateen was dismissed from the universities he works at because of his
absence, even though these institutions were informed about his arrest and condition.
(iv)
Legal analysis
36.
The source argues that the arrest and detention of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen are
arbitrary under categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
37.
The source alleges that the arrests of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen are arbitrary as no
legal basis can be invoked to justify the deprivation of their liberty.
38.
The source asserts that the national security officers who conducted the arrest failed
to provide an arrest or search warrant or any legal documentation to justify the arrest, and
argues that the authorities’ failure to inform Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen of the legal charges
against them violates articles 9 (2) and 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, principles 10 and 13 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and article 54 of the Constitution of Egypt.
b.
Category II
39.
The source argues that the arrest and prolonged pretrial detention of Mr. Hashad is a
direct result of his family member’s exercise of his fundamental rights to freedom of
opinion and expression through human rights activities. In the case of Mr. Fateen, the
source asserts that his arrest and prolonged pretrial detention are a direct result of his
position as former adviser to the Ministry of Higher Education under a former President
and are therefore politically motivated, constituting a violation of his fundamental right to
freedom of opinion.
40.
It is recalled that the right to freedom of expression and opinion does not fall under
any of the permissible limitations set forth by the Covenant. It is also recalled that the
Human Rights Committee has stated, in its general comment No. 34 (2011), that the right to
freedom of expression includes political discourse.
41.
Furthermore, the source contends that the cruel and ill-treatment of Mr. Hashad and
the confiscation of his prosthetic limb by prison authorities constitutes a violation of the
obligations of Egypt under the Convention.
42.
According to the source, Mr. Hashad’s requests for a medical transfer to obtain a
new prosthetic limb were rejected by the prison authorities on several occasions, despite the
importance of the prosthetic limb for his everyday movements. In the case of Mr. Fateen,
the source argues that, despite having been healthy at the moment of his arrest, his health
severely deteriorated due to poor conditions of detention. As such, the source argues that
both cases present evidence of medical negligence.
43.
The source asserts that the health and lives of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen are
endangered because of the systemic failure of the prison authorities, either through neglect
or through deliberate denial, to provide them with adequate healthcare, in breach of their
obligations under international law.
c.
Category III
44.
The source contends that Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen have been in pretrial detention
since 2019 and 2018, respectively, exceeding the legal limit of two years prescribed under
the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that, in total, pretrial detention cannot exceed
6 months for defendants accused of misdemeanours, 18 months for felonies and two years
for felonies punishable by death or life imprisonment.
45.
In the present case, the source asserts that the pretrial detention of Mr. Hashad and
Mr. Fateen has been systematically renewed for five and six years, respectively.
46.
According to the source, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code on pretrial
detention, which have been used to prolong the pretrial detention of Mr. Hashad and
Mr.Fateen, violate the human rights safeguards enshrined in both domestic and
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
6
GE.25-08317
international law. The source argues that the Criminal Procedure Code facilitates pretrial
detention for lengthy periods of up to two years and leaves little to no recourse for
detainees who wish to challenge their continued pretrial detention, in violation of articles 9,
10 and 14 of the Covenant, article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
and article 54 of the Constitution of Egypt.
47.
The source asserts that Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen were both subjected to enforced
disappearance, from 20 May to 4 August 2019 and from 14 November 2018 to 5 August
2019, respectively, and argues that enforced disappearances have become a systematic
practice in the country.
48.
The source recalls that the right of persons not to undergo enforced disappearance is
considered one of the fundamental customary non-derogable rights, even in a state of
emergency, and that, according to the International Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance, persons deprived of liberty must be held only in
officially recognized detention places. The source adds that States are obligated to ensure
that no one is held secretly in detention and to provide detainees’ family members and
lawyers with accurate information on the detention.
d.
Category V
49.
The source asserts that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Fateen is a direct result of
his diverging political opinion, as a former adviser to the Ministry of Education during the
Government of a former President. In the case of Mr. Hashad, the source asserts that his
deprivation of liberty is a consequence of his family members’ activism and opposition to
the current Government.
50.
According to the source, the two cases demonstrate an example of the discrimination
that human rights defenders and their families, as well as all opposition members, are
subjected to by authorities, in violation of article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
51.
The source concludes that the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Hashad and
Mr. Fateen are discriminatory and fall under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
52.
On 1 March 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 30 April 2024, detailed information about the
current situation of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen and to clarify the legal provisions justifying
their continued detention, as well as the compatibility of the detention 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 of Egypt
to ensure the physical and mental integrity of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen.
53.
On 31 May 2024, the Government replied to the communication (after the deadline).
It did not request an extension of the deadline for its response as provided for in the
Working Group’s working methods. The Working Group cannot accept this response as if
it were provided within the time limit. In accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of
work, the Working Group will render its opinion based on all the information it has
obtained.
2.
Discussion
54.
In the absence of a timely response from the Government, the Working Group has
decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of
work.
55.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen is
arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
7
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.2 Mere assertions by the
Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.
56.
The source has argued that the detention of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen is arbitrary
and falls under categories I, II, III and V of the working methods of the Working Group.
(a)
Category I
57.
The source alleges that the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Hashad and
Mr. Fateen are arbitrary as no legal basis can be invoked to justify the deprivation of their
liberty. It argues that the national security officers who conducted the arrests of Mr. Hashad
and Mr. Fateen, on 20 May 2019 and 14 November 2018, respectively, failed to provide
them with an arrest or search warrant. In its late response, the Government explained that
they had been arrested after the Public Prosecution Service exercised its discretionary
authority based on the information and evidence available to it. The Government adds that
the Public Prosecution Service issued a reasoned warrant pursuant to article 35 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, which grants the Public Prosecution Service the right to issue a
reasoned warrant for the arrest of a suspects if there is sufficient evidence of their
involvement in a felony.
58.
Pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one is to be deprived of their liberty
except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.
Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that persons who are arrested are to be informed, at
the time of arrest, of the reasons for their arrest and are to be promptly informed of any
charges against them. As the Working Group has previously stated, in order for 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. 3 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent
document).4 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.5
59.
While the Government asserts that both individuals were arrested based on an arrest
warrant issued by the Public Prosecution Service, it did not address the relevant question,
namely whether a warrant or equivalent document was shown to Mr. Hashad and Mr.
Fateen at the time of their arrest. In this regard, the Working Group notes the distinction
between issuing an arrest warrant and showing it to a suspect before the arrest. In the
Working Group’s views, the Government does not explain how the arrests were conducted,
nor the dates and places of the arrests. This contrasts with the detailed account provided by
the source, who states that Mr. Hashad was arrested on 20 May 2019, at around 11 p.m., by
national security officers, some in uniform, others in civilian clothes, at his student
residence in Sadat City, in the presence of other students. Mr. Fateen was reportedly
arrested on 14 November 2018 at around 1 a.m., also by national security officers, some of
whom were in uniform and others who were wearing in civilian clothes. The officers seized
four laptops, five cameras and a phone. Having reviewed the information available to it, the
Working Group is thus not satisfied that Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen were presented with an
arrest warrant at the moment of their arrest, irrespective of whether one was duly issued. It
finds that that their arrest violates article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and article 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
4 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.
5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25; and opinions No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59; and No. 85/2021, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
8
GE.25-08317
60.
The Working Group observes the source’s allegations that Mr. Hashad and
Mr. Fateen were subjected to enforced disappearance from the moment of their arrest until
4 August 2019 and 5 August 2019, respectively, when they appeared before the Public
Prosecution Service. Thus, Mr. Hashad was forcibly disappeared for nearly two and a half
months and Mr. Fateen for nearly nine months. The source notes that Mr. Fateen’s family
sent complaints about his enforced disappearance to the Ministry of the Interior and the
National Council for Human Rights but received no answer. According to the source, the
enforced disappearances of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen were not acknowledged by the
authorities, as their arrests were recorded to have taken place on 4 and 5 August 2019,
respectively, reflecting the dates of their first appearance before the prosecutor rather than
the actual date of their arrests. Moreover, in its further comments, the source notes that, on
23 February 2024, Mr. Hashad was again forcibly disappeared until 2 March 2024.
Although his family enquired about him at Ashmūn police station, the police denied
knowing his whereabouts. In its late response, the Government does not refer to any these
allegations.
61.
The Working Group recalls that deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or
persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or
whereabouts of the disappeared person, is prohibited by international law. It constitutes a
particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention, notably as it places the person outside
the protection of the law.6
62.
Taking into consideration the lack of information from the Government to contest
the source’s allegations or establish the whereabouts of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen
between their arrest and appearance before the prosecutor in Shibīn al-Kawm and the
Supreme State Security Prosecutor, respectively, the Working Group finds that both
individuals were subjected to enforced disappearance, in breach of article 3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
63.
One of the most glaring consequences of enforced disappearance is that it effectively
deprives the detained individual of the right to challenge the legality of detention before a
court, in violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant. Judicial oversight of any
detention is a central safeguard for personal liberty and is critical in ensuring that detention
has a legitimate basis. The Working Group recalls that holding persons at secret locations
and in circumstances undisclosed to the person’s family violates their right to contest the
legality of their detention before a court or tribunal under article 9 (3) and (4) of the
Covenant.7 Given that the whereabouts of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen were not disclosed
for the duration of their enforced disappearance despite their family’s enquiries to the
authorities, the Working Group finds that they were deprived of their rights under
article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant, and were placed outside the protection of the law, in
violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the
Covenant. The Government’s failure to notify their families of the location of their
detention also violated principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
64.
Furthermore, article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that anyone arrested or detained
on a criminal charge should be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights
Committee has stated, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement for
promptness. Any delay longer than that must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified
under the circumstances.8
65.
As was found above, Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen were subjected to enforced
disappearance from the moment of their arrest, for two and a half months and nine months,
respectively. In Mr. Hashad’s case, he was only brought before a judge in September 2019,
6 Opinions No. 5/2020, para. 74; No. 6/2020, para. 43; No. 11/2020, para. 41; No. 13/2020, para. 52;
No. 77/2020, para. 61; No. 38/2021, para. 83; No. 53/2022, para. 67; No. 56/2023, para. 92; and
No. 17/2024, para. 60. See also Human Rights Committee general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
7 Opinion No. 17/2024, para. 62.
8 General comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32 and 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
9
about three months after his arrest. With regard to Mr. Fateen, it is unknown whether he
was brought before a judge. However, the source notes that it is believed that Mr. Fateen
must have appeared before a court between late September or early October 2019. In the
absence of any information from the Government to the contrary, the Working Group
considers that the right of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen to be promptly brought before a
judge following their arrest was also violated, contrary to article 9 (3) of the Covenant and
principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
66.
In addition, the Working Group observes that, according to the source, Mr. Hashad
and Mr. Fateen first appeared before the prosecutor and were brought before a court only
one or two months later. The Government in its late response submits that the Public
Prosecution Service, as an independent and impartial judicial body, conducted the
investigations within 24 hours of the arrest of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen and remanded
them in custody pending investigations. In this regard, the Working Group recalls that a
prosecutor cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the
Covenant.9
67.
Moreover, the Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that Mr. Hashad
and Mr. Fateen have been in pretrial detention since 2019 and 2018, respectively,
exceeding the legal limit of two years prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
According to the source, their pretrial detention has been systematically renewed. This is
acknowledged by the Government, as its late response confirms that Mr. Hashad and Mr.
Fateen are both held in pretrial detention, the former in connection with case No.
3391/2023, for allegedly joining a terrorist organization, and the latter in connection with
case No. 930/2019, for alleged involvement in a plot by the Muslim Brotherhood.
68.
The Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law
that pretrial detention is to be the exception and not the rule, and that it should be ordered
for as short a time as possible.10 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it shall not be
the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained, but release may be subject to
guarantees to appear for trial and at any other stage of the judicial proceedings. It follows
that liberty is recognized as a principle and detention as an exception in the interest of
justice.11 In order to give effect to this principle, pretrial detention must be based on an
individualized determination that is reasonable and necessary, for such purposes as to
prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.12 The courts must
examine whether alternatives to detention, such as bail, would render custodial measures
unnecessary.13 Moreover, although the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element
in the assessment of the risk of absconding or reoffending, the need to continue the
deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed purely from this abstract point of view, taking into
consideration only the gravity of the offence and using stereotyped formula without an
individualized assessment or considering alternative preventive measures.
69.
In the present case, the Working Group observes that, contrary to the
above-mentioned norms, Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen have been kept in detention since
2019 and 2018, that is for approximately six years, with no statutorily prescribed reviews of
their detention and no alternative preventative measures being examined. The Working
Group has received no information allowing it to conclude that individualized
determinations underpinned their pretrial detention over the course of these years.
9 Ibid., para. 32; and opinions No. 14/2015, para. 28; No. 5/2020, para. 72; No. 6/2020, para. 47; and
No. 41/2020, para. 60; and A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, para. 35.
10 Opinions No. 28/2014, para. 43; No. 49/2014, para. 23; No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 1/2020, para. 53;
and No. 8/2020, para. 54; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and
A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 54.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
13 Ibid.; opinion No. 83/2019, para. 68; 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, guideline 15.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
10
GE.25-08317
Therefore, it finds that the detention of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen violates article 9 (3) of
the Covenant.
70.
Given all the above, the Working Group concludes that the deprivation of
Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen lacks a legal basis, and is thus arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
71.
The source contends that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen is
arbitrary under category II because it results from the exercise of their right to freedom of
expression and opinion, namely the right to express a dissenting political opinion.
72.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s submissions that the arrest and
prolonged pretrial detention of Mr. Hashad is a direct result of the exercise by a member of
his family of his fundamental rights to freedom of opinion and expression through human
rights activities. The source asserts that the authorities’ aim is to pressure Mr. Hashad’s
family member to stop his advocacy activities and human rights work. As for Mr. Fateen,
the Working Group notes that, according to the source, his arrest and prolonged pretrial
detention are a direct result of his position as former adviser to the Ministry of Higher
Education under a former President and are therefore politically motivated.
73.
In its late response, the Government states that Mr. Hashad was accused of joining a
terrorist organization with the aim of carrying out hostile acts through a plan intended to
disturb public security, harm social peace, incite violence, spread fear among citizens and
harm the public interest. He is also accused of engaging in acts of unrest to disrupt the
provisions of the Constitution and State institutions, and inciting chaos. With regard to
Mr. Fateen, the Government submits that he was accused of being involved in a plot by the
Muslim Brotherhood. In its further comments, the source contends that terrorism-related
charges have become a tool by Egyptian authorities to stifle any opposition or human rights
voices.
74.
The Working Group recalls that freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental
right enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of
the Covenant. The right to freedom of expression and opinion includes political discourse,
commentary on public affairs, discussion of human rights and journalism. It protects the
holding and expression of opinions, including those that are critical of, or not in line with,
government policy. Furthermore, the right to take part in the government of one’s country
is enshrined in article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 25 of the
Covenant.
75.
The Working Group notes that the source’s allegations concerning Mr. Hashad refer
to his family member’s activism and exercise of the right of freedom of opinion and
expression. As such, the Working Group considers that category II does not apply to his
case and, therefore, no violation is found in his case under this category.
76.
With regard to Mr. Fateen, the Working Group observes that, according to the
source, during his enforced disappearance, he was regularly interrogated about his life and
his role as an adviser to the Ministry of Higher Education during the Government of a
former President. The Government, in turn, did not refute the content of the interrogations
to which Mr. Fateen had been subjected.
77.
Taking into consideration all the information provided, the Working Group
considers that Mr. Fateen’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his rights to
freedom of opinion and expression and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, in
violation of articles 19 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19
and 25 of the Covenant, and is thus arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
78.
The source claims that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen falls
within category III as there was total or partial non-observance of the international norms
relating to the right to a fair trial, as they did not benefit from effective legal assistance of
counsel, they were subjected to torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment and their
right to a fair trial was violated.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
11
79.
According to the source, Mr. Hashad was only able to meet with his lawyer in late
August 2019, during his second appearance before the prosecutor. Although his lawyer had
submitted multiple requests to visit him in prison – all of which were approved by the
prosecutor – the prison administration refused to carry out the orders. As a result, Mr.
Hashad was reportedly only able to consult with his lawyer during detention renewal
sessions, which take place every 45 days before a judge. In its late reply, the Government
solely confirms that the Public Prosecution Service’s investigations were conducted in the
presence of the defendant’s defence.
80.
The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty are to have the
right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice, at any time during their detention,
including immediately after their apprehension, and that such access is to be provided
without delay.14 The right to legal assistance is an essential element of the right to fair trial,
as it serves to ensure that the principle of equality of arms is duly observed.15 The Working
Group also recalls that access to counsel is a right enshrined in article 14 (3) of the
Covenant and principles 11 (2), 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and reinforced by article 11 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant sets out the
right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence and to
communicate with counsel of one’s own choosing.
81.
The Working Group observes that the Government did not specifically address
whether the lawyer was able to actually visit Mr. Hashad in prison, or if communication
between Mr. Hashad and his lawyer was permitted. Noting the lack of information from the
Government to contest the source’s allegations in this regard, the Working Group considers
that Mr. Hashad was denied his right to effective legal counsel, contrary to principles 15, 17
and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment and principles 1, 5, 7, 8, 21 and 22 of the Basic Principles on
the Role of Lawyers.
82.
Furthermore, it appears to the Working Group that Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen were
not afforded the due process right to be visited by and have contact with their families and
to be given adequate time and opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject
to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations, in
accordance with 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). Having prompt and regular access to family members and independent
medical personnel and lawyers is an essential and necessary safeguard for prevention of
torture as well as for protection against arbitrary detention and infringement of personal
security.16
83.
The Working Group recalls that, as was established above, Mr. Hashad and Mr.
Fateen were subjected to enforced disappearance for nearly two and a half months and nine
months, respectively, immediately after their arrest. The source submits that Mr. Hashad’s
family was first able to visit him in February 2021, after he had been transferred to Wadi al-
Natrun prison without his prosthetic limb. While it is not clear when Mr. Fateen was able to
receive his first family visit, it is clear from the above that his family could only have been
able to visit him at least nine months after his arrest and appearance following his enforced
disappearance. In its late response, the Government denies these allegations, stating that
Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen receive regular family visits, such as a visit on 13 March 2024
for Mr. Hashad and on 6 April 2024 for Mr. Fateen. In its further comments, the source
contends that Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen receive family visits once a month, in violation of
14 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 9 and guideline 8; Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55; and
A/HRC/48/55, para. 56. See also A/HRC/27/47, para. 13.
15 See opinion No. 35/2019.
16 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 74; No. 11/2020, para. 54; No. 33/2020, para. 87; 34/2020, para. 57; and
87/2020, para. 116.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
12
GE.25-08317
the law, which allows for weekly visits for pretrial detainees, and that the visits only last 10
minutes and takes place in the presence of police officers and prison staff.
84.
In the Working Group’s view, the Government has failed to address the alleged time
of the enforced disappearance of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen, during which they would
have been unable to receive visits or communicate with their families. The Working Group
thus finds that their right to receive visits was violated.
85.
The Working Group expresses grave concern at the source’s allegations that Mr.
Hashad and Mr. Fateen were subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by national
security officers during their enforced disappearance. According to the source, Mr. Hashad
was repeatedly stripped of his clothing, suspended from the ceiling, beaten, insulted and
threatened with the arrest of his family members. He was also electrocuted, including on
the amputated part of his leg and his genitals, and his testimonies regarding the torture he
was subjected to were largely ignored. Furthermore, Mr. Fateen was referred to by a
number rather than his name, was regularly beaten, electrocuted on sensitive areas and kept
restrained. A doctor reportedly visited him periodically to administer painkillers, to enable
him to withstand further interrogation sessions. In Mr. Hashad’s case, the source notes that
his testimony regarding the torture he was subjected to was largely ignored by the
authorities. The Government rejects the source’s allegations and submits that the
investigative authorities and trial authorities examined the accused during investigations
and trial sessions in the presence of their lawyers, and no injuries were found on the
individuals to support these claims.
86.
The Working Group recalls that torture is not only a grave violation of human rights
per se, but also undermines the ability to defend oneself, thereby hindering the exercise of
the right to a fair trial. The Working Group notes that the use of confessions extracted
through ill-treatment that is tantamount if not equivalent to torture is a breach of
article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant and may also constitute a violation of the State’s
obligations under article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Furthermore, principle 21 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
specifically prohibits taking undue advantage of the situation of a detained person to
compel confession or incriminating statements. The admission into evidence of a statement
allegedly obtained through torture or ill-treatment renders the entire proceedings unfair,
regardless of whether other evidence was available to support the verdict.17 The burden is
on the Government to prove that statements were given freely,18 but in this case it has not
done so.
87.
The Working Groups notes that the Government’s late response to the source’s
allegations of torture is focused principally on the absence of injuries and other physical
manifestations of assault on the part of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen. The Government’s
information on this point does not dispel the fact that signs of torture could have healed at
the moment when Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen appeared before the investigative authorities
who allegedly examined them. Taking into consideration all the information available to it,
the Working Group is inclined to consider that the fairness of proceedings was tainted by
mistreatment and torture, amounting to a violation of both individuals’ fair trial rights under
article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (g) of the
Covenant.
88.
The Working Group observes that Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen remain in pretrial
detention, where they have been held for six years since their arrest, a fact acknowledged
by the Government in its late response. The Working Group recalls that the right of the
accused to be tried without undue delay, set out in article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant is
designed not only to avoid keeping persons too long in a state of uncertainty about their fate
and, if held in detention during the period of the trial, to ensure that such deprivation of
17 Opinions No. 43/2012, para. 51; No. 34/2015, para. 28; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (i); No. 32/2019,
para. 43; No. 59/2019, para. 70; and No. 73/2019, para. 91.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41; and opinions No. 41/2020,
para. 70; and No. 86/2020, para. 80.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
13
liberty does not last longer than necessary in the circumstances of the specific case, but also
to serve the interest of justice. The Working Group has not been presented with any
justification for the delay, nor any information that would refute the allegations. It therefore
finds a violation of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.
89.
Lastly, the Working Group notes that, according to the source, Mr. Hashad obtained
a release order on 20 February 2024, after spending almost five years in pretrial detention.
However, the release order was not implemented, and he was forcibly disappeared for nine
days. He reappeared on 2 March 2024 before the Supreme State Security Prosecutor. The
source reports that Mr. Hashad was then “rotated” into a new case (case No. 3391/2023)
and charged with joining and financing a terrorist group – charges similar to those in his
previous case, for which he had been acquitted. The Government, in its late response, does
not challenge these allegations and rather acknowledges them by stating that Mr. Hashad is
currently held in pretrial detention for case No. 3391/2023 and accused of joining a terrorist
organization.
90.
While the Working Group does not have sufficient information to conclude as to a
possible violation of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in article 14 (7) of the Covenant,
it considers that the Government has not adequately rebutted the source’s submissions with
regard to Mr. Hashad having been subjected to the practice of “rotation”.
91.
Given the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that the authorities violated the
right of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen to a fair trial and due process. Such violations are of
such gravity as to render their deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character under category
III.
(d)
Category V
92.
The source argues that the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Hashad and
Mr. Fateen are discriminatory on the basis of their political opinions, and that their case
constitutes an example of the increasing use of pretrial detention by authorities in Egypt
against human rights defenders, journalists and individuals perceived to be critical of the
Government.
93.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that Mr. Fateen’s
deprivation of liberty stems from his political opinion, specifically as a former adviser to
the Ministry of Education during the Government of Morsi Mohamed. Regarding
Mr. Hashad, the source claims that his detention is a result of his family member’s activism
and opposition to the current Government.
94.
While the Government contends in its late reply that Mr. Fateen was accused of
being involved in an allegedly terrorist organization, namely the Muslim Brotherhood, it
has not specifically addressed the allegations from the source concerning the specific
questions during interrogation related to his work as a former adviser to the Ministry of
Education under a previous administration.
95.
The Working Group recalls that, when detention has resulted from the active
exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the deprivation of
liberty also constitutes a violation of international law based on political and other views.
As concluded in the analysis under category II, Mr. Fateen’s arrest and detention resulted
from the exercise of his rights under international law, falling under category II.
96.
Furthermore, the Working Group is aware of the collective punishment meted out by
the Government and courts over the past years to the real or perceived members of the
outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, and the Working Group has repeatedly condemned such
practices in its jurisprudence. The series of publicized, mass trials also leave little doubt
about the collective nature of the punishment.19 The Working Group is thus convinced that
Mr. Fateen was targeted because of his political opinion, as a former adviser to a ministry
under the administration of Mohamed Morsi.
19 See opinions No. 83/2017, No. 26/2018, No. 87/2018, No. 42/2019 and No. 65/2019,
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
14
GE.25-08317
97.
The Working Group observes that Mr. Hashad’s family member is a prominent
lawyer, human rights defender and former prisoner of conscience who fled Egypt in 2019
and is currently living abroad, from where he continues his advocacy work, exposing
human rights violations in prisons in Egypt. Reportedly, Mr. Hashad was repeatedly
interrogated by prison authorities with the intention of pressuring his family member to stop
his advocacy activities and his human rights work. Moreover, the source submits that Mr.
Hashad’s family member released a human rights report in January 2021 and, a week later,
the head of prison investigations told Mr. Hashad that he would be punished as a result of
his family member’s human rights work and for spreading lies about the country and, as a
consequence, his prosthetic limb was taken away.
98.
The Working Group is of the view that the arrest and detention of Mr. Hashad is a
direct punishment for his association with his family member. Not only do such
deprivations of liberty and other collective acts of reprisal violate international law that
protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of birth and family ties, they also
qualify as flagrant violations of the right to liberty and security of person, as enshrined in
articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the
Covenant, and to freedom from arbitrary or unlawful interference with the family and
home, as enshrined in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 17 of the Covenant.
99.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation
of liberty of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen constitutes a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant on the
grounds of discrimination based on their perceived political opinion.
(e)
Concluding remarks
100.
The Working Group expresses serious concerns about the source’s allegations on the
deliberate medical negligence of Mr. Hashad’s health, preventing him from using his
prosthetic limb, and the failure to provide him with a with a suitable prosthetic limb.
Moreover, it expresses concern that Mr. Fateen reportedly suffers from high blood pressure
and chest pains as a result of the torture, ill-treatment and severe stress to which he was
subjected during his enforced disappearance. The Working Group feels obliged to remind
the Government that, in accordance with article 10 of the Covenant, all persons deprived of
their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect to the inherent dignity of the
human person and that denial of medical assistance constitutes a violation of rules 24, 25,
27 and 30 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Working Group refers the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health for appropriate action.
101.
Furthermore, it notes that this opinion is one of several brought before the Working
Group in recent years concerning arbitrary detention in Egypt. 20 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.21 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
102.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Oqba Alaa Labib Hashad, being in contravention of
articles 2, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2, 9, 14, 16 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.
20 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.
21 Opinions No. 20/2023, para. 75; No. 70/2023, para. 87; and No. 20/2024, paras. 63 and 75.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
GE.25-08317
15
The deprivation of liberty of Seif el-Din Khaled el-Din Fateen, being in
contravention of articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 19 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 16, 19, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
103.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situations of Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen without delay and bring them 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.
104.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen immediately
and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in
accordance with international law.
105.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention and treatment of Mr.
Hashad and Mr. Fateen and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
106.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group
refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment
of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health for appropriate action.
107.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
108.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Hashad and Mr. Fateen have been released and, if so, on what
date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Hashad
and Mr. Fateen;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Hashad’s and Mr. Fateen’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.
109.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
110.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/25
16
GE.25-08317
111.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its
views and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons
arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have
taken.22
[Adopted on 7 April 2025]
22 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.