A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

GE.25-08319 (E) 170725 170725

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. 3/2025 concerning Yacine Cheref (Algeria)

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.

In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 2 December 2024 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Algeria a communication concerning Yacine Cheref. The

Government has not replied to the communication within the established time frame. The

State is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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/2025/3

General Assembly

Distr.: General

5 June 2025

English

Original: French

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

2

GE.25-08319

1.

Submissions

(a)

Communication from the source

Yacine Cheref was born in 1983 in Algiers, where he is ordinarily resident. He is a

trader.

(i)

Arrest and detention

According to the source, on 27 May 2024, agents of the Directorate General of Internal

Security arrested Mr. Cheref in the commune of Les Eucalyptus in Algiers without an arrest

warrant issued by a judicial authority and without informing Mr. Cheref of the reasons for

his arrest.

On the same day, Mr. Cheref’s home was searched by agents of the Directorate

General of Internal Security under a search warrant issued by the public prosecutor. During

the search, the agents seized a smartphone, a hard drive belonging to a member of

Mr. Cheref’s family and SIM cards belonging to Mr. Cheref.

The source reports that, following his arrest, Mr. Cheref was taken to a place of

detention initially unknown to him, where he was officially held in custody from 9 p.m. on

27 May 2024 until 7 p.m. on 30 May 2024, without being able to contact members of his

family. At 7 p.m. on 30 May 2024, Mr. Cheref was able to telephone his family, but the call

lasted only five minutes and was monitored by three agents from the Directorate General of

Internal Security.

Mr. Cheref was subjected to interrogation sessions conducted by agents of the

Directorate General of Internal Security on each of the nine days (a total of 216 hours) that

he spent in custody, between 27 May and 5 June 2024, without being provided with any form

of legal assistance from a lawyer. Nor was he informed of his right to remain silent or his

right to challenge the legality of his detention before a judicial authority during this period.

The interrogations to which Mr. Cheref was subjected were focused on posts and

photographs published by him on social networks criticizing the policies of the President of

the Republic, the interference of the Algerian army in political affairs and the exploitation of

religion in public affairs.

According to the source, on 29 May 2024, during an interrogation session, some

agents of the Directorate General of Internal Security punched Mr. Cheref in the head, neck

and upper back and kicked him in the thigh and lower back. One of the officers, who was

wearing a regular military uniform, said to him, “If this were the 1990s ...”, and pointed to

his neck, which Mr. Cheref understood to be a threat to cut his throat.

The source reports that, during this session, the agents continually insulted Mr. Cheref

with homophobic remarks such as: “We’re going to rape you, you faggot – you’re at Antar2

now.” This is how he learned where he was being held. The agents also called him an infidel

and a heretic and threatened to arrest and rape members of his family. Mr. Cheref asked to

exercise his right to legal counsel, to which the agents of the Directorate General of Internal

Security replied: “You have no rights here.”

According to the source, as a result of these remarks by the agents and out of fear of

being tortured and ill-treated again, Mr. Cheref agreed to sign the record of the interrogation

to which he had been subjected, in which he had incriminated himself.

(ii)

Charges and trial

The objects seized during the search of Mr. Cheref’s home were subjected to

electronic searches and their contents extracted pursuant to a search order issued by the public

prosecutor. These contents, which include screenshots of posts from Mr. Cheref’s social

media accounts in which he expresses peaceful political views critical of the President of the

Republic and army officials and expresses support for Algerian bloggers based abroad who

2 The source indicates that Antar is the name of the headquarters of the Directorate General of Internal

Security in the commune of Ben Aknoun in Algiers.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

GE.25-08319

3

are on the national list of persons and entities classified as terrorists,3 were used as evidence

in Mr. Cheref’s criminal prosecution.

The source indicates that during the examination of one of the SIM cards seized in the

search of Mr. Cheref’s home, a conversation was extracted in which one of the two

participants identified himself as being of homosexual orientation, a non-believer and a

follower of satanism. This conversation was used as evidence in the criminal proceedings

conducted against Mr. Cheref, who was charged with blasphemy under article 144 bis 2 of

the Criminal Code, even though he categorically denies being one of the two people.

According to the source, on 6 June 2024, Mr. Cheref was brought before the public

prosecutor of the Court of El Harrach, who notified him verbally of the criminal charges

brought against him by the public prosecutor’s office, namely:

(a)

Affront to the Prophet and denigration of Islamic precepts and dogma, under

article 144 bis 2 of the Criminal Code;

(b)

Dissemination and propagation to the public of false and defamatory

information likely to undermine public security and public order, under article 196 bis of the

Criminal Code;

(c)

Promotion of terrorism, under articles 87 bis 4 and 87 bis 5 of the Criminal

Code;

(d)

Dissemination of the ideas of terrorist groups using communications

technologies, under article 87 bis 12 of the Criminal Code;

(e)

Incitement and provocation of an unarmed gathering, under article 100 of the

Criminal Code.

Having been informed of the charges, Mr. Cheref was brought before the investigating

judge of the Fifth Investigating Chamber of the Court of El Harrach on the same day, where

he was assisted by his lawyer for the first time. The investigating judge interviewed

Mr. Cheref in first appearance proceedings and noted his statements in the record of the

hearing, in which Mr. Cheref denied the charges against him. Mr. Cheref also told the

investigating judge that, since the inception of the Hirak movement in February 2019, he had

participated in peaceful demonstrations and made comments critical of the policies of senior

Algerian officials on his social networking accounts, which fell within the scope of his right

to freely express his opinions on the public affairs of his country.

The source reports that, following this interview, the investigating judge ordered

Mr. Cheref to be placed in pretrial detention at Kolea Prison, without specifying in the order

any justification for the detention.

On 9 June 2024, Mr. Cheref’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the pretrial detention

order with the Indictments Chamber of Algiers Court of Appeal.

On 26 June 2024, the Indictments Chamber upheld the pretrial detention order and

refused Mr. Cheref’s request to be released. On the same day, Mr. Cheref lodged with the

Kolea clerk’s office a complaint addressed to the public prosecutor concerning the torture

and ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by agents of the Directorate General of

Internal Security while in custody at Antar.

On 18 July 2024, Mr. Cheref was brought before the investigating judge for

questioning on the substance of the case in the presence of his lawyer, during which he again

denied the charges against him and stated that his confession had been obtained through

torture and threats of rape against him and members of his family.

On 27 November 2024, Mr. Cheref was tried before the criminal court of first instance

in Dar el Beïda. At the end of his trial on the same day, he was sentenced to 1 year’s

imprisonment for the offence of dissemination and propagation to the public of false and

3 See communication DZA 12/2021, available at:

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26905.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

4

GE.25-08319

defamatory information likely to undermine public security and public order, under article

196 bis of the Criminal Code. The court acquitted him of the other four charges.

The source indicates that Mr. Cheref is currently serving his sentence at Kolea Prison

and intends to lodge an appeal against the verdict.

(iii)

Legal analysis

According to the source, the detention of Mr. Cheref is arbitrary under categories I,

II, III and V of the methods of work of the Working Group.

a.

Category I

The source notes that, under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of

his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are

established by law. The source cites the statement of the Working Group that, in order for a

deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing

the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of

the case. This is typically done through an arrest warrant or order, or equivalent document.

Furthermore, under article 9 (2) of the Covenant, anyone who is arrested must be informed,

at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest.4 According to the source, detainees

must also be promptly informed of the charges against them.5

The source alleges that Mr. Cheref was arrested on 27 May 2024 by agents of the

Directorate General of Internal Security without an arrest warrant or other document issued

by a judicial authority. Moreover, he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time

of arrest, in violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.

Consequently, the source submits that Mr. Cheref’s arrest lacks any legal basis and

thus constitutes arbitrary detention under category I.

b.

Category II

The source recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category II when it results from

the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms protected under international law. The source

contends that, in Mr. Cheref’s case, the Algerian State violated his rights to freedom of

expression and peaceful assembly.

Mr. Cheref was arrested, detained and prosecuted for expressing peaceful views about

the Algerian political system. According to the source, the posting on social networks of ideas

that are critical of the President of the Republic, senior military officials and the exploitation

of religion in various areas of public administration is merely the expression of peaceful

views, a right enshrined in article 19 of the Covenant.

The source adds that Mr. Cheref is also being held, in violation of article 21 of the

Covenant, for his support of peaceful demonstrations as a means of fighting for respect for

the rule of law and democracy. All the proceedings brought against Mr. Cheref and his

deprivation of liberty are, moreover, based on provisions of the Criminal Code that punish

the exercise of rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the

Covenant, in particular the right to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in article 19 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant, and the right to

freedom of peaceful assembly and association, which is guaranteed in article 21 of the

Covenant.

The source concludes that Mr. Cheref’s detention is thus arbitrary under category II.

4 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64; see also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),

para. 23.

5 Opinions No. 7/2021, paras. 63 and 64; No. 45/2022, para. 67; No. 79/2022, para. 58; No. 4/2023,

para. 64; No. 53/2023, para. 38; and No. 58/2023, para. 43.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

GE.25-08319

5

c.

Category III

The source argues that Mr. Cheref’s detention is arbitrary under category III because

the Algerian State has committed multiple violations of his right to due process as enshrined

in the Covenant, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Body of Principles for

the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the United

Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela

Rules).

The source recalls that, at the time of his arrest and throughout the period of his

custody, in particular during his interrogations by the Directorate General of Internal

Security, Mr. Cheref was denied the assistance of a lawyer and was informed neither of his

right to a defence, nor of his right to remain silent, all in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the

Covenant.

Deprived of his right to a defence while in custody, the length of which exceeded

48 hours, Mr. Cheref was prevented from exercising his right to challenge the lawfulness of

his detention before a judicial authority, in violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant. The

source emphasizes that he was brought before a judge only after nine days in custody, in

violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

The source contends that being arbitrarily deprived of the right to have the assistance

of a lawyer or receive visits from family members constitutes incommunicado detention,

which creates an environment conducive to torture and ill-treatment. The source maintains

that it was in these circumstances that Mr. Cheref was tortured and subjected to threats that

his family would be tortured and would suffer inhuman and degrading treatment by agents

of the Directorate General of Internal Security, with the aim of extracting from him

confessions that would incriminate him, all in violation of article 2 of the Convention against

Torture and articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant.

These confessions and declarations of guilt were mentioned in the record of the

interview conducted by the Directorate General of Internal Security and were used by the

public prosecutor in the prosecution proceedings, in violation of article 15 of the Convention

against Torture and article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.

The source also claims that the violation of Mr. Cheref’s right to adequate time and

facilities to prepare his defence and to communicate with a lawyer from the outset of his

arrest and detention vitiated the entire procedure and violated his right to a fair trial.

The source therefore asserts that the Algerian State is responsible for arbitrarily

detaining Mr. Cheref under category III.

d.

Category V

Lastly, the source contends that Mr. Cheref’s detention is arbitrary under category V

since he has been targeted for discriminatory reasons, including his peaceful activism for

democracy and his writings criticizing the President of the Republic, senior military officials

and government policies, all in violation of articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.

According to the source, the Algerian Government, through its agents, targeted

Mr. Cheref for his peaceful opposition activism and his real or supposed membership of an

opposition group.

Accordingly, the source is of the view that Mr. Cheref was deprived of his liberty for

discriminatory reasons, particularly because of his opposition political views, which would

amount to arbitrary detention under category V.

(b)

Response from the Government

On 2 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning

Mr. Cheref to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about him by

31 January 2025. Specifically, the Working Group requested the Government to clarify the

legal provisions justifying his continued detention and their compatibility with the

obligations of Algeria under international human rights law, in particular with the treaties

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

6

GE.25-08319

that the State has ratified. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government to

ensure Mr. Cheref’s physical and mental integrity.

The Government submitted its response on 13 February 2025, that is, after the

deadline. The Government did not request an extension of the deadline for its reply, as

provided for in the Working Group’s methods of work. Therefore, the Working Group cannot

accept the reply as if it had been submitted within the time limit.

2.

Discussion

The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a timely response from the

Government to this communication. In the absence of a timely response from the

Government, and on the basis of all the information available to it, the Working Group has

decided to render the present opinion in conformity with paragraph 16 of its methods of work.

In determining whether Mr. Cheref’s detention 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.6 Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have

been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.

(a)

Category I

The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under

category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without a legal basis.

The source claims that Mr. Cheref was arrested on 27 May 2024 without being

presented with an arrest warrant or other document issued by a judicial authority and without

being informed of the reasons for his arrest. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest

until he was brought before the public prosecutor on 6 June 2024, in violation of article 9 (1)

and (2) of the Covenant.

Article 9 (1) of the Covenant provides that no one should be deprived of his or her

liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by

law. As the Working Group has previously stated, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have

a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities

must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.7 This is typically

done through an arrest warrant or order, or equivalent document.8

In its reply, the Government states that Mr. Cheref was arrested on the orders of the

public prosecutor but does not submit that a warrant was presented to Mr. Cheref.

Furthermore, the source notes that no mention of this document can be found in the

investigation report submitted by the officer of the Directorate General of Internal Security

to the public prosecutor. Accordingly, the Working Group is of the view that the source has

provided credible information, insufficiently refuted by the Government, that Mr. Cheref was

arrested without an arrest warrant or equivalent document and without any indication that the

situation did not allow for a warrant to be obtained, as in cases of flagrante delicto, all in

violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.

Furthermore, article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested must

be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and must be promptly

informed of any charges against him or her. Respect for these rights is essential for the other

rights set out in article 9 of the Covenant, since all individuals must know the reasons for

their arrest in order to challenge it effectively and must be brought before a court or judge in

order to lodge an appeal.

6 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

7 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.

8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23; see also opinions No. 88/2017,

para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. See also the Arab Charter on Human

Rights, art. 14 (1).

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

GE.25-08319

7

While the Government states that Mr. Cheref was informed of the reasons for his

arrest at the time at which it was carried out, it provides no details to substantiate this claim.

The Working Group recalls that mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures

have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.9 The Working Group

therefore finds a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.

The source claims that Mr. Cheref was not brought before a judge until 6 June 2024,

at least nine days after his arrest on 27 May 2024, without any justification for this delay.

The Government, for its part, asserts that Mr. Cheref was held in custody from 27 May 2024,

with custody extended on the authorization of the prosecutor for consecutive periods of

48 hours on 29 May, 31 May, 2 June and 4 June 2024, making a total duration of nine days

and nine nights.

Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal

charge must be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has stated,

48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detained person

“promptly” before a judge, and any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be

justified under the circumstances.10 Longer detention in the custody of law enforcement

officials without judicial control unnecessarily increases the risk of ill-treatment.11

In the present case, Mr. Cheref was arrested and placed in custody under the

supervision of the public prosecutor, who approved extensions of the custody period. As the

Working Group has stated, a prosecutorial body cannot be considered a judicial authority for

the purposes of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.12 Consequently, the legal basis for Mr. Cheref’s

detention was not established in accordance with the requirements of the Covenant.

With regard to the Government’s argument that Mr. Cheref’s custody was in

compliance with articles 44 and 45 of the Constitution, the Working Group recalls that a

State’s compliance with its national legislation does not exempt it from complying with its

obligations under international human rights law.13 The Working Group also notes that the

Human Rights Committee has expressed concern that article 51 bis of the Code of Criminal

Procedure allows for the initial custody period of 48 hours to be extended up to five times

and that persons held in such custody might not be provided with access to counsel until

halfway through that period.14 In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group concludes

that article 9 (3) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

have been violated.

The source also claims that Mr. Cheref was held incommunicado, insofar as he was

prevented from contacting his family during the first three days of his custody and was

deprived of the assistance of a lawyer for the entire duration of his custody. In its late

response, the Government asserts that Mr. Cheref was authorized at the time of his arrest to

contact his family and did so, and that he was informed during the preliminary enquiries of

his right to a lawyer in accordance with article 51 bis 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Government asserts that Mr. Cheref waived this right during the preliminary enquiries,

deciding nevertheless to have recourse to a lawyer during the judicial enquiry. The Working

Group notes that the Government has not provided detailed and substantiated information to

support this claim; in particular, it has not presented such information demonstrating

Mr. Cheref’s alleged waiver of his right to counsel. Consequently, the Working Group

considers that the Government has been unable to reverse the burden of proof that lies with

it in relation to the source’s prima facie credible allegations on this point.

The Working Group recalls that holding persons incommunicado may violate their

right under article 9 (4) of the Covenant to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before

9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., para. 32. See also opinions No. 14/2015, para. 28; No. 5/2020, para. 72; and No. 41/2020,

para. 60. See also A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, para. 35.

13 Opinions No. 1/2018, para. 60; No. 37/2018, para. 37; No. 50/2018, para. 67; and No. 77/2020,

para. 63.

14 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 17

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

8

GE.25-08319

a court.15 Providing prompt and regular access to family members may also contribute to

preventing torture and arbitrary detention.16 The Working Group points to its conclusions

above concerning the restriction of Mr. Cheref’s right of access to a lawyer. It considers that

Mr. Cheref’s detention without contact with a lawyer or his family amounts to

incommunicado detention for several days following his arrest and violated his right to

challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court. Accordingly, the authorities have

violated article 9 (4) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.

In view of the foregoing conclusions, the Working Group considers the detention of

Mr. Cheref to be without legal basis, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant and articles 3

and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His detention is therefore arbitrary

under category I.

(b)

Category II

The source contends that Mr. Cheref’s detention is arbitrary under category II as it is

the result of his exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms protected under international law.

According to the source, Mr. Cheref was prosecuted for expressing on social networks

peaceful opinions about the political system in Algeria and for participating in peaceful pro-

democracy demonstrations calling for the rule of law. The source adds that Mr. Cheref was

prosecuted under provisions of the Criminal Code that criminalize the exercise of the rights

protected by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19

and 21 of the Covenant.

According to the Government, Mr. Cheref was arrested pursuant to an order issued by

the public prosecutor following the discovery of evidence indicating his involvement in the

posting of messages praising terrorist elements and false and malicious information likely to

undermine public security and public order.

Article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights provide that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and opinion. This right

includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas of all kinds and regardless of frontiers.17 In its resolution 12/16, the

Human Rights Council called on States to refrain from imposing restrictions that were not

consistent with article 19 (3) of the Covenant, including on the discussion of government

policies and political debate, reporting on human rights, engaging in election campaigns,

peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy, and

expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief. Moreover, in its resolution 24/5, the

Council reminded States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all

individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including

persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders and

others.18

The Working Group notes that, according to the source, the proceedings against

Mr. Cheref are based in part on posts on social networks in which he expresses peaceful

political views that are critical of the President of the Republic and army officials and

expresses his support for Algerian bloggers based abroad who are on the national list of

persons and entities classified as terrorists. The source asserts that these posts constitute

peaceful expression by Mr. Cheref of his political opinions. The Working Group notes that

the charge of “dissemination and propagation to the public of false and defamatory

information likely to undermine public security and public order” is intrinsically linked to

expression, and that the Government has not demonstrated that Mr. Cheref’s posts fall within

the exceptions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Consequently, the Working Group

15 See, inter alia, opinions No. 45/2017, No. 46/2017, No. 79/2017, No. 11/2018 and No. 35/2018.

16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58; and opinion No. 84/2020,

para. 69.

17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 9–12.

18 Opinion No. 34/2024, paras. 98 and 99.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

GE.25-08319

9

concludes that article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights have been violated.

Article 21 of the Covenant states that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of

the right of peaceful assembly other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which

are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety,

public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others. According to the source, Mr. Cheref participated in the peaceful

demonstrations from the inception of the Hirak movement in February 2019 onward.

The Working Group notes that the Government does not address the source’s

allegations concerning the violation of article 21 of the Covenant. Considering Mr. Cheref’s

activism and the link between the charges brought against him, in particular that of incitement

and provocation of an unarmed gathering, and his activities in connection with the Hirak

movement, the Working Group concludes that his arrest was also linked to the exercise of

his rights under article 21 of the Covenant and article 20 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.

The source adds that Mr. Cheref is being held on charges under article 196 bis of the

Criminal Code. In 2021, various United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group

expressed their concerns about this criminal provision, which they found to be vague and,

accordingly, to constitute a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression. 19 The

Working Group recalls that laws that are vaguely and broadly worded may have a deterrent

effect on the exercise of protected rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and

religion, freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and

association, as they have potential for abuse, including arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The

principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision so that

individuals can access and understand the law and regulate their conduct accordingly.20 In

the present case, the application of vague and overly broad provisions adds weight to the

Working Group’s conclusion that Mr. Cheref’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under

category II. In addition, the Working Group considers that, in some circumstances, laws may

be so vague and overly broad that it is impossible to invoke them as a legal basis justifying a

deprivation of liberty.

Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Cheref’s detention resulted from

the exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, opinion and peaceful assembly, in

violation of articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19

and 21 of the Covenant. Mr. Cheref’s arrest and detention are thus arbitrary under category II.

(c)

Category III

Given its findings under category II, the Working Group is of the view that Mr. Cheref

should not have been placed on trial. Nevertheless, according to the information provided by

the source, Mr. Cheref was tried and sentenced to 1 year’s imprisonment by the criminal

court of first instance in Dar el Beïda on 27 November 2024.

With regard to the source’s allegations concerning the impossibility for Mr. Cheref of

consulting a lawyer while in custody, which have been discussed in detail above under

category I, the Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right

to legal assistance by counsel of their choosing under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the

Covenant. This right applies at all times during their detention, including immediately after

the moment of apprehension, and access to counsel must be granted promptly in the absence

of exceptional circumstances.21 Any legislation that purports to remove the right to counsel

is inherently contrary to international human rights standards.22

19 See communication DZA 12/2021, p. 11. See also A/HRC/58/53/Add.1, para. 23.

20 See, for example, opinions No. 62/2018, paras. 57–59; and No. 20/2023, paras. 45 and 46.

21 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 (A/HRC/30/37, annex), principle 9

and guideline 8; A/HRC/45/16, para. 51; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35

(2014), para. 35.

22 Opinion No. 40/2021, para. 84.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

10

GE.25-08319

According to the source, Mr. Cheref was subjected to physical and psychological

violence during his detention, including beatings and threats of rape against members of his

family. To contest the allegations of physical violence, the Government, in its late reply,

asserts that Mr. Cheref was examined by a doctor on the day of his arrest, who certified that

he was in normal physical condition. The Working Group considers that the Government’s

statements concerning Mr. Cheref’s state of health on the day of his arrest are too vague, and

in any case insufficient, to refute the source’s allegations regarding ill-treatment in custody

and the use of torture to extract confessions.

The Working Group recalls that use of a confession extracted under torture

contravenes article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 15 of the

Convention against Torture, article 7 of the Covenant and principle 21 of the Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.23

The prohibition on the use of torture is reinforced by principles 1, 6, 21 and 22 of the Body

of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

and articles 2 and 16 (1) of the Convention against Torture. The use of torture and other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment is also prohibited under article 39 of the Algerian

Constitution.

The Working Group has already concluded in previous opinions that it is unlikely that

a person subjected to torture or other ill-treatment would be able to adequately prepare a

defence in a trial in which the principle of equality of arms would be respected.24 It is clear

therefrom that acts of torture or ill-treatment inflicted on a person deprived of liberty not only

constitute a serious violation of human rights, but also fundamentally undermine the fairness

of the trial, as they can compromise the ability to defend oneself, particularly with regard to

the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt. 25 Forced

confessions also taint the entire proceedings, even if other evidence was used to reach a

verdict.26

Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture provide that States are obliged

to undertake prompt investigations wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act

of torture has been committed. In its reply, the Government denies having received any

complaint of ill-treatment submitted by Mr. Cheref. In accordance with the applicable

principles for dealing with evidentiary issues, the Working Group considers that the

Government’s mere denial of the existence of a complaint is not sufficient to rebut the

source’s prima facie credible allegations of ill-treatment.

In these circumstances, the Working Group finds a violation of article 10 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant. The detention of

Mr. Cheref is therefore arbitrary under category III.

(d)

Category V

According to the source, Mr. Cheref had expressed on social networks his political

opinions, which were critical of the country’s leaders, and his support for Algerian bloggers;

this served as evidence leading to his arrest and subsequently to charges of blasphemy,

dissemination of false information likely to undermine public security and public order,

promotion and dissemination of terrorist ideas, and incitement and provocation of an

unarmed gathering.

The Government’s late reply does not contain detailed and substantiated information

to refute the source’s prima facie credible arguments that Mr. Cheref’s detention stems from

discrimination as a result of his political opinions, rather than from alleged terrorist activities.

The Working Group recalls that, to determine whether a deprivation of liberty is

discriminatory, it considers several non-cumulative factors, including the following:

(a) whether the deprivation of liberty is part of a pattern of persecution against the detained

23 Opinions No. 48/2016, para. 52; No. 3/2017, para. 33; No. 6/2017, para. 43; No. 29/2017, para. 64;

and No. 39/2018, para. 42.

24 Opinions No. 29/2017, para. 63; and No. 32/2019, para. 42.

25 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 78; No. 26/2019, para. 104; and No. 56/2019, para. 88.

26 Opinion No. 34/2015, para. 28.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

GE.25-08319

11

person (for example, through multiple previous detentions); (b) whether other persons with

similarly distinguishing characteristics have also been persecuted; or (c) whether the context

suggests that the authorities have detained a person on discriminatory grounds or to prevent

them from exercising their human rights.27

The Working Group has adopted several opinions in which it has found that persons

in Algeria have been deprived of their liberty for discriminatory reasons under category V,

including members of the Hirak movement.28 In this case, and noting the absence of a detailed

and substantiated response from the Government to refute the source’s observations or to

justify Mr. Cheref’s arrest and detention, the Working Group considers that the deprivation

of liberty of Mr. Cheref is part of a practice of targeting him because of his political opinions.

Considering the peaceful nature of Mr. Cheref’s actions and the right to freedom of

expression protected by the Covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the

Working Group considers that he has been deprived of his liberty on discriminatory grounds,

in violation of articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and articles 2 and 7 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. His detention is therefore arbitrary under category V.

3.

Disposition

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Yacine Cheref, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7,

9, 10, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14,

19, 21 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary

and falls within categories I, II, III and V.

The Working Group requests the Government of Algeria to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of Mr. Cheref 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.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Cheref immediately and accord him an

enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international

law.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Cheref and to

take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

4.

Follow-up procedure

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. Cheref has been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Cheref;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Cheref’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 Algeria with its international obligations in line with the

present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

27 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.

28 Opinions No. 45/2022, No. 58/2023 and No. 29/2024.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/3

12

GE.25-08319

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.

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.

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.29

[Adopted on 1 April 2025]

29 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.