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.25-06450 (E) 200625 200625
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. 32/2025 concerning Ahmed Yousry Mohamed el-Sayed
Yamani Nassr and Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi (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 31 July 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Ahmed Yousry
Mohamed el-Sayed Yamani Nassr and Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi. The
Government replied to the communication on 24 October 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, 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/2025/32
General Assembly
Distr.: General
20 June 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
2
GE.25-06450
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Ahmed Yousry Mohamed el-Sayed Yamani Nassr is a citizen of Egypt born in 1996.
Prior to his arrest, he was a university student in the Faculty of Engineering at Helwan
University. He usually resides in Cairo.
5.
Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi is a citizen of Egypt born in 1994. Prior
to his arrest, he was a university student at the Faculty of Engineering at the Universities of
Canada in Egypt. He usually resides in Beni Suef Governorate, Egypt.
(i)
Context
6.
According to the source, Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were subjected to prolonged
arbitrary detention amounting to indefinite detention as a result of the practice of recycling
or “rotating” cases. The source explains that case rotation consists of bringing new charges
against individuals who have completed their sentence or been ordered to be released,
typically following periods of enforced disappearance and transfers between National
Security Agency premises, with the new charges being similar to those initially brought
against those very same individuals.
7.
The source reports that the practice of recycling cases has become the primary tool
used by the Egyptian authorities to extend detention beyond the two-year limit established
by article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, creating a vicious cycle of continuous
pretrial detention under successive cases.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
a.
Ahmed Yousry Mohamed el-Sayed Yamani Nassr
8.
At approximately 2 a.m. on 26 October 2016, five agents from the National Security
Agency in civilian clothes reportedly raided Mr. Nassr’s residence and seized his laptop
computer, camera and 20,000 Egyptian pounds. According to the source, Mr. Nassr was
arrested in front of witnesses, without being presented with an arrest warrant or any
documentation to justify his arrest, and his house was raided without a search warrant.
9.
The source reports that, from the date of his arrest, Mr. Nassr was subjected to multiple
instances of enforced disappearance. Reportedly, he first disappeared from 26 October to
25 December 2016 and was kept in an unknown location, which was later revealed to be the
National Security Agency headquarters in Lazoughli, Abbasiya, Cairo. The authorities
reportedly did not acknowledge that period of enforced disappearance and recorded
Mr. Nassr’s arrest as having taken place on 25 December 2016, at 10 a.m., which corresponds
to Mr. Nassr’s first appearance before the Public Prosecution.
10.
According to the source, during his enforced disappearance, Mr. Nassr was subjected
to torture, including electric shocks, beatings and assaults, by National Security Agency
officers. After he was subjected to enforced disappearance, a complaint to the Presidency and
enquiries to the Prosecutor General and the Minister of the Interior made by his family
regarding his whereabouts reportedly remained unanswered.
11.
The source claims that, in December 2016, Mr. Nassr appeared before a military court
in case No. 148 of 2016 and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in Tora Prison. Upon
the completion of his sentence in December 2019, he was sent to the Al-Zawayah police
station to complete the necessary procedures for his release. The source claims, however, that
his release was continuously delayed until he was forcibly disappeared from inside the station
from December 2019 to 5 February 2020.
12.
On 5 February 2020, Mr. Nassr reportedly appeared before the Public Prosecution in
case No. 220 of 2020 on charges of joining a terrorist group and distributing leaflets and was
placed in pretrial detention. The source states that he was acquitted in October 2020 but was
then charged with possessing a memory card, in case No. 1829 of 2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
3
13.
According to the source, Mr. Nassr was kept in pretrial detention until 14 January
2021 and brought before the Public Prosecution in Bulaq Abu el-Ela on 15 January 2021 in
case No. 42 of 2021, on charges of possessing a memory card.
14.
Mr. Nassr was reportedly acquitted in October 2021 but remained in pretrial detention
in the Bulaq Abu el-Ela police station until 12 November 2021, when he was transferred to
the Public Prosecution in Ain Shams in relation to case No. 21789 of 2021, on charges of
possessing two bullets, of which he was acquitted in April 2022.
15.
The source reports that Mr. Nassr was forcibly disappeared after his acquittal in April
2022 until 9 May 2022, when he appeared before the Public Prosecution in Fifth-Settlement
in relation to case No. 7927 of 2022 on charges of possessing a bullet, of which he was
acquitted on 29 August 2022.
16.
From 29 August until 10 October 2022, Mr. Nassr was allegedly subjected to another
instance of enforced disappearance, until he reappeared before the Public Prosecution in Qasr
al-Nile in case No. 6121 of 2022 on charges of the illegal distribution of leaflets. The
authorities reportedly recorded Mr. Nassr’s arrest as having occurred on Emad el-Din Street,
thereby attempting to camouflage the reality of his enforced disappearance.
17.
The source explains that Mr. Nassr remains in pretrial detention at the 10th of
Ramadan Reform and Rehabilitation Centre. His detention is reportedly being continuously
renewed by the investigating judge pending a new case on the charge of distributing leaflets.
18.
According to the source, although Mr. Nassr’s lawyer was present during all his
appearances before the prosecution, he has not been able to visit Mr. Nassr in detention since
his arrest in 2016.
19.
The source claims that Mr. Nassr has not received family visits for almost a year
because visits are not allowed when a person is being rotated under different cases. In
addition, the source reports poor detention conditions, especially in the summer, due to the
poor ventilation of the cells and overcrowding.
b.
Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi
20.
The source reports that, on 22 August 2017, three National Security Agency agents
arrested Mr. Al-Kholi at a mosque in El-Wasty Centre, Beni Suef Governorate. He was
reportedly forced into a car and subjected to enforced disappearance until 13 December 2017,
when he reappeared at the Beni Suef State Security Headquarters. Witnesses to
Mr. Al-Kholi’s arrest allegedly saw no warrant or other documentation produced to justify
the arrest. The source notes that the authorities did not acknowledge the period of
Mr. Al-Kholi’s enforced disappearance and, instead, recorded his arrest as having taken place
on 12 December 2017, one day before his appearance before the Public Prosecution.
21.
According to the source, on 13 December 2017, after nearly four months of enforced
disappearance, Mr. Al-Kholi appeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution, which
ordered his pretrial detention at Scorpion Prison in case No. 760 of 2017, on charges of
joining a terrorist group and destroying a cash machine. The source submits that Mr. Al-Kholi
was not informed of the reasons for his arrest or detention at the moment of his arrest. He
reportedly learned of the charges against him on 13 December 2017, during his first
appearance before the prosecution.
22.
The source reports that Mr. Al-Kholi was in pretrial detention in Scorpion Prison until
28 April 2020, when the Supreme State Security Prosecution ordered his release, as he had
exceeded the pretrial detention limit of two years.
23.
In addition, Mr. Al-Kholi was allegedly held incommunicado, denied family visits
and cut off from all communication with the outside world. According to the source,
Mr. Al-Kholi was first able to have access to a lawyer in 2020 and his first family visit
occurred on 24 January 2022.
24.
The source claims that, despite his release having been ordered on 28 April 2020,
Mr. Al-Kholi was not released but, instead, was rotated successively in more than five cases
(cases No. 2169/2021, No. 1009/2021, No. 6361/2021, No. 5693/2021 and No. 272/2021).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
4
GE.25-06450
25.
The source reports that, on 28 December 2021, Mr. Al-Kholi was acquitted in one of
the aforementioned cases. As the procedures for his release were being completed, however,
Mr. Al-Kholi was reportedly subjected to another period of enforced disappearance, until he
appeared on 13 January 2022 before the Supreme State Security Prosecution, which ordered
his pretrial detention in case No. 1943 of 2022, under charges of joining and financing a
terrorist group.
26.
The source contends that every time that Mr. Al-Kholi has reached the maximum limit
for pretrial detention, he has been charged with a new case on similar charges, which has
resulted in his being held in pretrial detention for over seven years. Mr. Al-Kholi is allegedly
now in pretrial detention in relation to case No. 1943 of 2022.
27.
According to the source, on 18 January 2022, Mr. Al-Kholi was brought to Beni Suef
General Hospital, where a doctor requested X-rays and other tests. Due to the prison
authorities’ systematic refusal, however, Mr. Al-Kholi has reportedly still not been able to
get the tests done.
28.
The source claims that Mr. Al-Kholi is being detained in extremely poor conditions,
especially in the summer, due to overcrowding and a lack of ventilation, and his health is
severely deteriorating. He had allegedly broken his pelvis before his arrest and developed
severe respiratory allergies following his detention. The source notes that his rapidly
deteriorating health and poor detention conditions have raised concerns that he could die in
detention.
(iii)
Legal analysis
29.
The source argues that the arrest and detention of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi are
arbitrary under categories I and III of the working methods of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
30.
According to the source, the officers who arrested Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi failed
to provide an arrest warrant or any legal documentation to justify the arrests. As such, the
source argues that the failure of the authorities to inform either of the individuals of the legal
charges against them renders their detention arbitrary and is contrary to the Covenant, notably
to article 9.
31.
The source also argues that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone
arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge or another
officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power over the detention and that that excludes
the Public Prosecution. If a person already detained is ordered into custody for a new criminal
charge, they must be brought before a reviewing authority to assess the second detention.
32.
The source points out that articles 142 and 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
Egypt provide that pretrial detention can be renewed by an investigating judge or prosecutor
for 15-day periods, for a total of 150 days. Beyond that, the renewal of pretrial detention can
be ordered in 45-day increments but must be reviewed by a judge.
33.
The source reports that, in the cases at hand, as with those regarding other activists
and dissidents subjected to pretrial detention on the basis of terrorism accusations, the
Supreme State Security Prosecution is in charge of the pretrial investigation. Once the
Supreme State Security Prosecution has exhausted the allowed duration of pretrial detention,
the trial court must review the pretrial detention.
34.
The source argues that permitting the Supreme State Security Prosecution rather than
judges to review pretrial detention is flawed. It points out that the Supreme State Security
Prosecution, which has been deemed insufficiently independent, objective and impartial by
the Working Group, systematically orders the accused to be detained after questioning and
repeatedly renews their pretrial detention in 15-day intervals up to the maximum permissible
period of 150 days. According to the source, even when a court orders a release, the Supreme
State Security Prosecution either always successfully appeals the order or maintains the
individual in detention without any legal basis, pending rotation into another case.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
5
35.
The source recalls that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, a judge must decide
whether to release or remand into custody an individual brought before them. It adds that
pretrial detention should be the exception and allowed only to prevent flight, interference
with evidence or the recurrence of a crime. Its necessity must be assessed individually,
periodically and with the consideration of alternatives.
36.
The source submits that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were subjected to multiple
instances of enforced disappearance, a practice it claims has become systematic and routine
in Egypt. Mr. Nassr was subjected to enforced disappearance on four separate occasions:
from 26 October to 25 December 2016; from December 2019 to 5 February 2020; from April
to 9 May 2022; and from 29 August until 10 October 2022. As for Mr. Al-Kholi, the source
states that he was subjected to enforced disappearance on two occasions: from 22 August to
13 December 2017 and from 28 December 2021 to 13 January 2022.
37.
As a result of their enforced disappearances, Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were not
brought promptly before a judge or another officer authorized by law to exercise judicial
control of the detention, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
b.
Category III
38.
The source argues that the detention of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi is arbitrary under
category III insofar as their right to a fair trial was violated.
i.
Right to be free from repeated prolonged arbitrary detention
39.
The source argues that both cases provide strong evidence of repeated detention and
punishment for charges on which the two individuals had been acquitted or for which they
had served sentences, reinforcing the arbitrariness and illegality of their prolonged detention.
It contends that both Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were subjected systematically to enforced
disappearance following the completion of their sentences and, upon their reappearance,
found themselves detained in new cases under the same charges. The source submits that
those new cases were variants of the old cases and were aimed at keeping the individuals
indefinitely detained.
40.
The source contends that, through the practice of recycling cases, the authorities
violated Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi’s right to be free from repeated and prolonged arbitrary
detention.
ii.
Right to effective legal assistance
41.
The source submits that effective legal representation, which is fundamentally related
to the equality of arms, requires confidential in-person communication between lawyers and
their clients, which neither Mr. Nassr nor Mr. Al-Kholi has been able to have. It argues that
that is in breach of article 14 of the Covenant and of the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), in which the importance
of legal representation is stressed. The source also refers to principle 15 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
which provides that communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside
world, and in particular his family or counsel, should not be denied for more than a matter of
days.
42.
The source specifies that, while Mr. Nassr had a lawyer present during all of his
appearances before the prosecution, the frequency of his enforced disappearances casts doubt
upon whether he, in fact, had access to effective legal counsel. It adds that Mr. Nassr’s lawyer
has been unable to visit him in detention since 2016.
43.
As for Mr. Al-Kholi, the source contends that his right to have prompt access to
effective legal counsel has been partially denied: while Mr. Al-Kholi’s lawyer was present
during his first presentation before the prosecution, he has not been allowed to communicate
with his lawyer while in detention.
44.
According to the source, the authorities therefore violated Mr. Nassr and
Mr. Al-Kholi’s right to meet their lawyer in person, their right to effective legal
representation and their right to adequately prepare their defence.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
6
GE.25-06450
iii.
Right to family visits
45.
The source argues that a detainee’s rights to communicate with the outside world and
receive family visits are vital safeguards against human rights violations, including torture
and enforced disappearance. Citing article 17 (2) (d) of the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and principle 19 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
it notes that all detainees, regardless of the charges, have that right, subject only to reasonable,
legitimate restrictions. Moreover, the prison regulations allow for one family visit per week.
All visits and communications were suspended in March 2020, however, due to the
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and only resumed after August 2020 with strict
limitations.
46.
The source contends that Mr. Al-Kholi was denied family visits and communication
with the outside world for over five years following his arrest, that is, from August 2017 to
his first family visit in January 2022, in violation of his rights.
iv.
Right to be free from torture and cruel and inhuman treatment
47.
According to the source, during his first enforced disappearance, Mr. Nassr was
tortured by State Security agents, in violation of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It underlines that the prohibition of
torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is absolute.
48.
As for Mr. Al-Kholi, the source argues that he was subjected to medical negligence
amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The source
notes that medical negligence in detention involves a severe violation of international norms
relating to the treatment of detainees, such as those outlined in the Nelson Mandela Rules,
and is prohibited under article 7 of the Covenant. The source further recalls that, under
articles 27 and 33 of the Act on the Regulation of Prisons (Act No. 396 of 1956, as amended)
of Egypt, prisoners must receive medical treatment and prison authorities should ensure the
health of detainees, notably by having a medical officer responsible for detainees’ health and
allowing prisoners to see their own doctors. The source also refers to principle 24 of the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
and rules 24 and 27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, which echo those safeguards in terms of
the health of detainees.
v.
Right to education
49.
The source recalls that the right to education is guaranteed under international human
rights law, notably in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights.
50.
The source argues that detention that leads to the violation of a student’s right to
education, as it submits is the case for Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi, significantly deviates
from international norms, especially if the detention process itself was not compliant with
fair trial standards and due process. The source adds that that non-observance can give the
deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character due to its broader impact on the detained
individual’s fundamental rights, including the right to education. Arbitrarily detaining
students, and thereby disrupting their education, constitutes an infringement of their
fundamental right to education.
vi.
Right to health
51.
The source argues, on the basis of rules 25 and 27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, that
every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
which extends to timely and appropriate healthcare, as well as to adequate food, water and
sanitation. Moreover, sick prisoners whose health conditions require treatment by a specialist
must be transferred to specialized institutions or civil hospitals.
52.
The source submits that that the overcrowded cells and poor conditions in which
Mr. Al-Kholi has been detained have worsened the pain resulting from a broken pelvis injury
incurred prior to his detention. Furthermore, due to the reported poor ventilation and hygiene
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
7
standards that he has had to endure for five years, he has allegedly developed respiratory
problems. After several requests to receive medical care, Mr. Al-Kholi was reportedly
examined on 18 January 2022 by a doctor in Beni Suef General Hospital but subsequently
was denied the necessary tests, despite the doctor’s request for chest X-rays.
53.
The source notes with concern that, due to the lack of care and the rapid deterioration
of his health, Mr. Al-Kholi could die in detention. It contends that authorities intentionally
deny political prisoners access to medical care, thereby putting their lives at risk.
(b)
Response from the Government
54.
On 31 July 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 September 2024, detailed information about the current
situation of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their
continued detention and its compatibility with the obligations of Egypt under international
human rights law and, in particular, with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover,
the Working Group called upon the Government of Egypt to ensure the physical and mental
integrity of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi.
55.
On 26 September 2024, the Government of Egypt requested an extension of the time
limit, in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work, and was
granted a new deadline of 25 October 2024.
56.
In its response, received on 24 October 2024, the Government states that Egypt has
experienced numerous political developments since the 2011 revolution, with certain terrorist
elements taking advantage of the situation in the country. It explains that Da’esh emerged as
a major threat, prompting the Government to adopt a national counter-terrorism strategy
within the framework of Security Council resolution 2718 (2023) and in line with the
Criminal Procedure Code and Anti-Terrorism Act of Egypt.
57.
The Government claims that Mr. Nassr adhered to Da’esh ideology and has been
charged with multiple criminal offences since 2015. He is now accused in case No. 148 of
2017 before the Military Criminal Court, for which he was presented before the Military
Prosecution in East Cairo on 22 December 2016, accompanied by his lawyer. According to
the Government, Mr. Nassr was interrogated by the Military Prosecution, which, it argues, is
an independent judicial authority as stipulated by the Constitution and exercises, for cases
under military jurisdiction, the same powers granted to the Public Prosecution in accordance
with articles 1, 28 and 30 of the Military Judiciary Act. Its members fulfil the same duties as
those required by the Judicial Authority Act for members of the Public Prosecution.
58.
The Government contends that, during the investigation, Mr. Nassr was physically
examined by the prosecution and that no visible injuries were observed. He was confronted
with the evidence and criminal charges against him, which included membership in an illegal
organization and involvement in a conspiracy to commit crimes aimed at overthrowing the
Government, changing the Constitution and its republican system by force and damaging
State facilities. The Government states that he was questioned in detail about those
allegations and given the opportunity to present his defence and statements, further to which
the Military Prosecution ordered his detention pending further investigation and referred the
case file to the Military Criminal Court.
59.
On 12 June 2019, the court sentenced Mr. Nassr to three years of imprisonment on the
first charge and acquitted him of the second charge in the indictment. Mr. Nassr was notified
on 5 September 2020 of the court ruling, which had been ratified on 25 February 2020, and
as he did not appeal, it became final. He served his sentence with the pretrial detention time
deducted.
60.
The Government states that Mr. Nassr was also involved in planning terrorist
operations with the intent to spread fear among citizens, prevent State institutions from
performing their functions and ultimately incite chaos. He was apprehended on 4 June 2024,
in accordance with an arrest warrant issued on 27 May 2024, and charged by the Public
Prosecution with terrorism, adopting extremist ideologies and legitimizing violence against
the police, military forces and Christians in case No. 5647 of 2024, which is before the
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
8
GE.25-06450
Supreme State Security. During the judicial investigation, all legal safeguards were observed,
allowing him to present his defence in the presence of his lawyer throughout the proceedings.
He was remanded into custody on 5 June 2024. He is currently held at the Tenth Correctional
and Rehabilitation Centre 5 and the case remains under investigation.
61.
The Government denies the allegation that Mr. Nassr was tortured with electric
shocks. It states that the prosecution confirmed the absence of injuries after examining him
during the investigation. The Government explains that the court relies on confessions made
in front of a judicial authority, uncontaminated by any flaws, as legally valid evidence. Any
confession attributed to a defendant before a security authority, on the other hand, would
have no legal value. Furthermore, the investigative body examines a defendant during
interrogations to document any visible injuries, asks whether they have any injuries that are
not visible and refers the defendant for a physical examination if there is any allegation of
injury – all in the presence of their lawyer. The Government otherwise argues that a
systematic campaign has been launched by anti-State groups to create a false narrative and
tarnish the country’s image.
62.
The Government further submits that the Security Council’s directive to prevent the
use of territories for terrorism is applied in terrorism investigations in Egypt, which are
complex and based on highly specialized techniques and digital evidence. Evidence is
assessed holistically, and oral testimony, including confessions, must be corroborated by
other evidence. It considers that this approach renders claims of torture implausible.
63.
Regarding Mr. Nassr’s health, a review of his medical file and an examination
conducted by the physician where he is being held indicated that his vital signs were within
normal and healthy ranges and that he did not suffer from any chronic illnesses. The
Government also notes that he receives full health and social care in detention and is allowed
daily exercise, just like other inmates.
64.
The Government denies that Mr. Nassr has not received any visits and claims that he
receives regular visits, the latest having been on 7 August and 21 September 2024.
65.
With regard Mr. Al-Kholi, the Government alleges that he is a member of the Muslim
Brotherhood terrorist group and was charged in case No. 760 of 2017 by the Supreme State
Security Prosecution with assuming leadership within a terrorist organization, misusing
social media, possessing unauthorized firearms and financing terrorism.
66.
Mr. Al-Kholi was also charged in case No. 1934 of 2021, which is before the Supreme
State Security, for joining a terrorist organization with knowledge of its purposes and for
planning terrorist acts in the country aimed at disturbing public security, spreading fear
among citizens, obstructing the law and the Constitution and preventing State institutions
from performing their duties in order to incite chaos.
67.
Following judicial investigations conducted by the Public Prosecution, which
included hearing his statements and confronting him with evidence in the presence of his
lawyer, a detention order was issued against him in connection with case No. 1934 on
13 January 2021. The Cairo Court of Appeal was sent the referral order and a list of evidence
on 3 January 2023.
68.
That decision was made with full adherence to legal guarantees under the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially articles 36 (1), 124 and 134. The pretrial
detention in case No. 1934 has been suspended until his release in case No. 760 of 2017. He
is currently being held at Minya Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre 2.
69.
Upon reviewing his medical file and examining him, the physician at the correctional
and rehabilitation centre in which Mr. Al-Kholi is being held reported that he suffered from
chronic respiratory allergies and was receiving the necessary treatment. His vital signs were
within normal ranges and his overall condition was stable.
70.
The Government states that he receives regular visits, the latest having been on 28 July
and 16 September 2024.
71.
The Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding the human rights of all
citizens without discrimination, including those incarcerated or detained pending trial, and
emphasizes that no one is punished unless they have committed a crime punishable under
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
9
Egyptian law. It stresses that the charges against Mr. Nassr and M. Al-Kholi are in line with
the applicable legal framework, including those arising from articles 4, 6, 7, 8 and 16 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and article 9 (2) and (3) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government also reaffirms its ongoing efforts to
fight terrorism within constitutional and legal boundaries and in accordance with the core
principles of a democratic State. It believes that its pursuit of accountability for terrorists is
among a State’s positive obligations and that suggesting otherwise would undermine the
goals outlined in international instruments on countering terrorism, in which it is asserted
that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are
complementary and mutually reinforcing.
72.
The Government further underlines that it is accountable, first and foremost, to its
citizenry, with the country’s independent judiciary responsible for safeguarding rights,
verifying the legitimacy of any human rights violation claims, holding perpetrators
accountable and providing redress to victims.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
(i)
Ahmed Yousry Mohamed el-Sayed Yamani Nassr
73.
In its additional comments, the source points out that, according to the Government,
Mr. Nassr was presented before the Military Prosecution in East Cairo on 22 December 2016.
This ignores, however, that Mr. Nassr was arrested on 26 October 2016 and therefore
subjected to enforced disappearance for almost two months until his initial appearance.
74.
With regard to the Government’s claim that a physical examination conducted the day
of his appearance before the prosecution revealed no visible injuries to Mr. Nassr, the source
responds that the two months between his arrest and appearance allowed for the natural
fading of visible signs of torture.
75.
The source further argues that, while the Government acknowledges that Mr. Nassr
completed his three-year sentence in mid-2020, it entirely overlooks the four-year period
following the end of his initial sentence and fails to address that he has since then been rotated
through 10 different cases to indefinitely prolong his detention.
76.
In response to the Government’s submission that Mr. Nassr is allowed regular family
visits, the source underlines that, while visits were permitted while he was in prison, he has
been denied visits regularly while in police stations. The claim of consistent visitation rights
is misleading, as his family has faced severe restrictions and denials, particularly during his
transfers between prisons and police stations, which has hindered regular communication
with him.
77.
The source further notes that the Government fails to address the fact that Mr. Nassr
was denied the opportunity to take his university exams in 2023 and 2024.
(ii)
Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi
78.
The source points out that Mr. Al-Kholi has similarly been subjected to the practice
of rotation and has faced charges of leading a terrorist organization and engaging in actions
that endanger public security. After he was reportedly acquitted in one case on 28 December
2021, rather than being released, he was forcibly disappeared until 13 January 2022, when
he reappeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution and was charged in case
No. 1943 of 2022, that time with similar allegations of joining and financing a terrorist group.
Furthermore, the source points out that the Government entirely ignores how and when
Mr. Al-Kholi was arrested, leaving unexplained the four months of enforced disappearance
following his arrest, during which he was tortured. The Government also does not mention
that Mr. Al-Kholi was recycled in another case with similar charges after being acquitted.
79.
In addition, the source contests the Government’s claims that Mr. Al-Kholi’s health
condition is stable and that he is receiving the necessary treatment for chronic respiratory
allergies. It submits, instead, that Mr. Al-Kholi’s health has deteriorated significantly during
his detention, leading to chronic respiratory allergies, skin allergies, rectal bleeding and
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
10
GE.25-06450
severe breathing difficulties requiring the constant use of a breathing device, all of which
require specialized medical care unavailable in Egyptian prisons.
80.
While some visits have recently occurred, the source argues that the Government fails
to address the fact that, for over two and a half years during his detention in Scorpion Prison,
Mr. Al-Kholi was held incommunicado, completely banned from receiving any visits or
communicating with the outside world. That prolonged denial of visitation rights not only
violated his fundamental right to family contact but also exacerbated his physical and
psychological condition. While visits occasionally took place in 2024, they were heavily
restricted and did not permit meaningful family interaction.
2.
Discussion
81.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
82.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.2
(a)
Category I
83.
The source submits that neither Mr. Nassr nor Mr. Al-Kholi was presented with an
arrest warrant or any document to justify his arrest or informed of the legal charges against
him. The Government provides no information on the procedures followed for either arrest.
84.
The Working Group recalls that article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone
who is arrested is to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and is to
be promptly informed of any charges. The Working Group has previously stated that, in order
for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may
authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the
circumstances of the case.3 That 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 Moreover, the right to be presented with an arrest warrant, particularly
in cases that do not involve arrests made in flagrante delicto, which the Government has not
argued occurred here, serves to ensure the exercise of effective and objective control by a
competent, independent and impartial judicial authority. That is procedurally inherent in the
right to liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary detention enshrined in articles 3
and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) of the Covenant and
principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.6 The Working Group considers that those international
provisions were not respected in the present case.
85.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi
were not brought promptly before a judge. Instead, it claims that both were forcibly
disappeared multiple times, the first time being from the day of their arrest to their first
appearance before the prosecution, which in Mr. Nassr’s case amounted to two months and
in Mr. Al-Kholi’s nearly four months. The Government has not addressed those allegations
beyond providing the date of appearance before the prosecution for Mr. Nassr. In particular,
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 Opinion No. 9/2019, para. 29.
4 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; 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.
6 Opinions No. 6/2020, para. 40; No. 89/2020, para. 54; No. 16/2021, para. 45; No. 25/2022, para. 36;
and No. 17/2024, para. 54.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
11
it does not provide any information as to either man’s whereabouts during the periods
between their arrest and appearance.
86.
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 of the protection of the
law.7
87.
Noting the lack of information by the Government to disprove the source’s allegations
or establish the whereabouts of either man between his arrest and appearance before the
prosecution, in addition to the other periods of alleged enforced disappearance, the Working
Group finds that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were subjected to enforced disappearance
during those periods, in breach of article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 9 (1) of the Covenant and article 1 of the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
88.
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 the 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 the 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.8
89.
Given the repeated periods of detention in secret locations, which the Government
does not refute, let alone address, the Working Group finds that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi
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 the men’s
families of the locations 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.
90.
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.9
91.
It follows from the findings above regarding the enforced disappearance to which
Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were subjected that their right to be brought promptly 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.
92.
The Working Group notes, in that regard, that, according to the Government’s
response, Mr. Nassr was presented before the Military Prosecution in East Cairo on
22 December 2016, which it describes as an independent judicial authority. The Government
does not address the claim that, on 13 December 2017, four months after his arrest,
Mr. Al-Kholi appeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution, which ordered his
pretrial detention. The Working Group recalls, with regard to both of those situations, that a
prosecutor cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the
Covenant.10
7 See opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 13/2020, No. 77/2020, No. 38/2021 and
No. 53/2022. See also opinions No. 13/2020, para. 51; No. 56/2023, para. 92; and No. 17/2024,
para. 60; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
8 Opinion 17/2024, para. 62.
9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32 and 33.
10 Ibid., para. 32; 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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
12
GE.25-06450
93.
The Working Group therefore considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Nassr
and Mr. Al-Kholi lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category III
94.
The source argues that there is strong evidence that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were
repeatedly detained and punished for charges for which they had either been acquitted or
served their sentences. The source contends that the authorities violated both men’s right to
be free from repeated and prolonged arbitrary detention through the practice of recycling
cases.
95.
While the Government does not respond directly to that argument, it identifies two
cases in respect of each man in which he was sentenced or is currently detained pending
investigation. The source, in contrast, identifies at least five other cases in relation to each
man that the Government does not address and which, given the striking similarity in charges,
lend weight to the argument that both men were rotated through different cases to prolong
their detention. While the Working Group does not have sufficient information to reach a
conclusion regarding a possible violation of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in
article 14 (7) of the Covenant, it considers that the Government does not adequately rebut the
source’s submissions with regard to the subjection of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi to the
practice of rotation.
96.
According to the source, despite Mr. Nassr’s having had a lawyer present during all
of his appearances before the prosecution, the frequency of his enforced disappearances casts
doubt on whether he, in fact, had access to effective legal assistance. In addition, the source
claims that neither Mr. Nassr nor Mr. Al-Kholi has been able to communicate with a lawyer
while in detention, in Mr. Nassr’s case since 2016. The Government limits itself to stating
that both men were accompanied by a lawyer when they appeared before the prosecution.
97.
The Working Group considers that the inability of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi to
have access to legal assistance throughout what appear to be lengthy stretches of time,
coupled with periods of enforced disappearance, would have necessarily undermined and
compromised their capacity to defend themselves in any subsequent judicial proceedings.
According to principle 7 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, a detainee should
have access to effective counsel at the earliest appropriate time. The Working Group
considers that that principle is related fundamentally to the principle of equality of arms. In
addition, the Working Group recalls that article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant guarantees the
right of all persons charged with a criminal offence to have adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. In
the present case, the Working Group finds that the right of both men to legal counsel at a
critical stage of the criminal proceedings was violated, 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.
98.
It further appears to the Working Group that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi were not
afforded the due process right to be visited by and have contact with their families and to be
given adequate 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 Nelson Mandela Rules.
Having prompt and regular access to family members and independent medical personnel
and lawyers is an essential and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture and for
protection against arbitrary detention and the infringement of personal security.11
99.
Here, both men were subject to multiple periods of enforced disappearance.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Kholi was denied family visits and communication with the
outside world for over five years following his arrest, from August 2017 to January 2022,
whereas Mr. Nassr has not received family visits for almost a year because visits are not
11 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 74; No. 11/2020, para. 54; No. 33/2020, para. 87; No. 34/2020, para. 57;
and No. 87/2020, para. 116.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
13
allowed when a person is being rotated through different cases, in addition to the periods
when he was detained in police stations. The Government denies those claims, stating that
both receive regular visits and providing specific dates of recent visits in 2024. That
overlooks, however, the alleged five years of incommunicado detention for Mr. Al-Kholi and
the periods of alleged enforced disappearance for both men. The Working Group accordingly
finds that their right to receive visits was violated.
100.
The source alleges that Mr. Nassr was tortured and beaten during his first enforced
disappearance and that Mr. Al-Kholi was subjected to medical negligence amounting to
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – claims that the Government
expressly denies. In response, the Government contends that Mr. Nassr was physically
examined during the investigation by the prosecution, in accordance with standard practice,
which confirmed the absence of injuries. It adds that, while Mr. Al-Kholi suffers from chronic
respiratory allergies, he is receiving the necessary treatment and that both men are otherwise
in normal health.
101.
The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the allegations of torture or
ill-treatment made in respect of Mr. Nassr. The Working Group notes that the physical
examination of Mr. Nassr by the prosecution was carried out two months after the torture or
ill-treatment was alleged to have occurred. The Government’s information on that point is
accordingly unsatisfactory and in no way dispels the source’s claim, notably that any signs
of torture would have healed.
102.
Detainees should be protected from any practices that violate their right to be free
from any act that could cause severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, and that
are inflicted intentionally. In accordance with article 2 of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the right to freedom from
torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is absolute and non-derogable.12 In other words,
it applies in all circumstances and may never be restricted, including in times of war or during
a state of emergency. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including threats of
terrorism or violent crime, may be invoked to justify torture or other ill-treatment. That
prohibition applies irrespective of the offence allegedly committed by the accused person.13
103.
The Working Group finds that the Government has not rebutted the allegation that the
absolute prohibition of torture enshrined in article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant and articles 2 and 16 (1) of the Convention
against Torture was breached during Mr. Nassr’s first enforced disappearance. It 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.14
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.
104.
In its additional comments, on the Government’s response, the source mentions that
Mr. Al-Kholi was tortured during the four months of enforced disappearance following his
arrest. As no other information has been presented by the source to support that allegation,
the Working Group is unable to make a finding that Mr. Al-Kholi was subjected to torture.
105.
With regard otherwise to the claims regarding Mr. Al-Kholi’s health conditions,
which the Government, at least in part, acknowledges to be accurate, the Working Group
underlines that every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and
mental health.15 Sick prisoners whose health conditions require treatment by a specialist
should be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. Moreover, the denial of
medical care can constitute a form of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. The Working
12 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 5.
13 Opinion No. 42/2021, para. 76.
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), paras. 6, 41 and 60.
15 Opinion No. 42/2021, para. 78.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
14
GE.25-06450
Group considers that the failure to provide Mr. Al-Kholi with adequate medical care
significantly undermined his ability to defend himself. That is an additional element leading
the Working Group to consider that Mr. Al-Kholi’s right to a fair trial was violated.16
106.
In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right
to a fair trial and due process are in breach of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, and of such gravity as to give the deprivation
of liberty of Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi an arbitrary character under category III.
(c)
Concluding remarks
107.
The Working Group acknowledges the source’s argument that, by being deprived of
liberty, Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi have also had their right to education violated. The
Government has chosen not to address that argument. The Working Group reminds the
Government that the right to education is enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
article 19 of the Constitution of Egypt. The Working Group calls upon the Government to
take measures to reverse or otherwise redress any prejudice that Mr. Nassr and Mr. Al-Kholi
have experienced in that regard.
108.
The present opinion is one of several brought before the Working Group in recent
years concerning arbitrary detention in Egypt.17 The Working Group remains concerned that
that 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.18 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
109.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Ahmed Yousry Mohamed el-Sayed Yamani Nassr and
Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi, being in contravention of articles 3, 5, 6,
8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9, 10, 14
and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I and III.
110.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Messrs. Nassr and Al-Kholi 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.
111.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. Nassr and Al-Kholi immediately
and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance
with international law.
112.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Messrs. Nassr and Al-Kholi and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for
the violation of their rights.
113.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
16 Opinions No. 20/2022, para. 104; and No. 10/2024, para. 124. See also A/HRC/38/36, para. 18.
17 See, for example, opinions No. 12/2023, No. 20/2023, No. 31/2023, No. 36/2023, No. 40/2023,
No. 70/2023, No. 8/2024, No. 17/2024 and No. 20/2024.
18 Opinions No. 20/2023, para. 75; No. 70/2023, para. 87; and No. 20/2024, paras. 63 and 75.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/32
GE.25-06450
15
4.
Follow-up procedure
114.
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 Messrs. Nassr and Al-Kholi have been released and, if so, on what
date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Messrs. Nassr
and Al-Kholi;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Messrs. Nassr and Al-Kholi’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 the health status of Mr. Al-Kholi can be improved and confirmed by
independent health experts;
(f)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
115.
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.
116.
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.
117.
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.19
[Adopted on 9 April 2025]
19 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.