Opinion; Subjects: SENEGAL, 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.26-06984 (E) 040626 040626
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 105th session, 23 March–1 April 2026
Opinion No. 13/2026, concerning Mouhamadou Ngom (known as Farba
Ngom) and Tahirou Sarr (Senegal)*
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 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 12 December 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Senegal a communication concerning Mouhamadou Ngom
(known as Farba Ngom) and Tahirou Sarr. The Government replied to the communication
on 6 February 2026. 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 and 18–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 25–27
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,
* Miriam Estrada Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
General Assembly
Distr.: General
27 May 2026
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
2
GE.26-06984
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.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mouhamadou Ngom (known as Farba Ngom), born on 5 March 1971, is a member of
the National Assembly of Senegal and the mayor of the commune of Agnams.
5.
Tahirou Sarr, born on 23 August 1970, is a Senegalese businessman in the
construction and public works sector.
(i)
Context
6.
Since the March 2024 presidential elections and President Bassirou Diomaye Diakhar
Faye’s assumption of office, Senegal, according to the source, has been undergoing a political
transition. This transition, in the source’s view, is characterized by increased executive
control over the judiciary and a proliferation of measures targeting figures associated with
the former Government.
7.
The source asserts that the authorities have launched a broad campaign, referred to as
a campaign for accountability, that has resulted in the institution of legal proceedings against
former political leaders or individuals considered critical of the new Government. The source
notes an unusual reliance on pretrial detention as a means of exerting pressure or political
repression, with no regard for the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality
established in article 9 of the Covenant.
(ii)
Mouhamadou Ngom (known as Farba Ngom)
8.
The source notes that Mr. Ngom is a political figure known for his close ties to the
former Senegalese President. Since the new Government took office, legal proceedings
whose timing and manner suggest an evident attempt to use criminal charges for political
ends have, according to the source, been instituted against Mr. Ngom.
9.
During the legislative campaign in October and November 2024, Mr. Ngom was, as
noted by the source, singled out by the Prime Minister, who, according to the source, said:
“This will be the last election he participates in in Senegal”. A few weeks after these
statements, Mr. Ngom was, as noted by the source, the subject of a report by the National
Financial Information Processing Unit. The source explains that this report is based solely on
reports of suspicious transactions submitted by financial institutions as part of their financial
due diligence obligations. The source emphasizes that these automatic reports are merely
alerts indicating suspicious activity and that they are triggered when a transaction is deemed
unusual or exceeds internal thresholds. They are not, in the source’s view, based on any
accounting, tax or economic evidence and in no way establish the existence of an infraction.
The National Financial Information Processing Unit, according to the source, simply
compiled these reports, without engaging in a financial investigation, in-depth analysis or
independent verification or any sort.
10.
The source states that this report was forwarded to the Public Prosecution Service on
20 December 2024. On 3 January 2025, according to the source, the Prosecution Service
requested that the President of the National Assembly lift Mr. Ngom’s parliamentary
immunity. The request referred, in broad terms of no specificity, to acts that could be
classified as criminal conspiracy, money-laundering, embezzlement of public funds,
influence peddling, tax evasion and misappropriation of corporate assets, as well as aiding
and abetting these offences.
11.
The source notes that the decision to lift Mr. Ngom’s parliamentary immunity was
made, without discussion of any sort, on 24 January 2025. No detailed information about the
alleged crimes or any supporting documents were ever provided, and the National Assembly
did not have access to the Processing Unit’s report. Under these circumstances, the source is
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
3
of the view that the National Assembly would have found it difficult to assess the seriousness,
good faith and sincerity of the request, in clear violation of the guarantees associated with
immunity.
12.
The source notes that, on 27 February 2025, Mr. Ngom was arrested and charged by
the President of the panel of investigating judges of the financial judicial division of the court
of major jurisdiction (tribunal de grande instance) of Dakar with embezzlement of public
funds, money-laundering and criminal conspiracy on the basis of nothing other than the
Processing Unit’s unsubstantiated report. He was immediately placed in pretrial detention at
the Rebeuss detention facility in Dakar.
13.
The source notes that Mr. Ngom has not been questioned by investigators, a
prosecutor or the investigating judge who charged him and ordered him into pretrial
detention. He was never informed of the specific acts on which the charges against him are
based. He has been informed of the alleged offences only in general terms.
14.
The source also maintains that, since the institution of the proceedings, not a single
investigative step has been taken and no hearings have been held. Furthermore, no new
substantive evidence has been added to the case file since the charges were filed; the
Processing Unit’s unsubstantiated report is still the only piece of evidence.
15.
On 22 April 2025, according to the source, Mr. Ngom filed a motion for release on
bail, emphasizing that there had been no investigation before he was formally accused or any
adversarial proceedings. This motion was denied on 6 May 2025, on the grounds that
Mr. Ngom had not raised any serious objections to the charges, even though raising such
objections would, by definition, have been impossible, as the acts on the basis of which he
had been charged had not been made known to him.
16.
According to the source, Mr. Ngom’s medical condition deteriorated rapidly after he
was taken into custody. Even before then, his doctors had alerted the authorities to his pre-
existing medical condition, which involved several comorbidities and required specialized
care.
17.
The source notes that the panel of investigating judges ordered an initial medical
examination. The medical report dated 2 June 2025 confirmed that Mr. Ngom had eight
medical conditions and concluded that his health was incompatible with life in prison. A
second opinion by a panel of doctors was ordered by the financial investigating judge after a
request made by the Public Prosecution Service on 16 June 2025. The three doctors and
professors of the panel submitted their report on 7 August 2025; in the report, they stressed
that Mr. Ngom’s medical condition and the comorbidities that he presented put him at risk of
sudden nocturnal death, a risk inherent to the combination of his medical conditions and the
conditions of his detention. It was explicitly concluded in this second opinion that the
detention of Mr. Ngom was incompatible with his state of health.
18.
According to the source, Mr. Ngom’s situation has prompted public statements from
independent human rights organizations. On 4 September 2025, three human rights
organizations issued a joint statement calling on the authorities to review Mr. Ngom’s request
for release from custody, taking into account medical reports concluding that his health is
incompatible with detention.
19.
On 10 September 2025, according to the source, the Chair of the National Human
Rights Commission called publicly for the conditional release of Mr. Ngom, arguing that
keeping him in detention in the light of the medical reports was a serious violation of his
fundamental rights.
20.
The source notes that, despite the successive and consistent medical reports,
Mr. Ngom’s requests for conditional release were systematically denied. On 12 September
2025, the financial investigating judge rejected the motion for the release of Mr. Ngom and
ordered him transferred to the special ward at Aristide Le Dantec, a facility referred to as a
hospital.
21.
The source claims that, in fact, the term “hospital” is misleading, as the Aristide Le
Dantec Hospital has been closed for reconstruction since 2022. The special ward is therefore
neither a medical facility nor a hospital; rather, it is a prison annex administered by the prison
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
4
GE.26-06984
system. The source claims that the conditions for the provision of effective medical care at
this facility are wholly lacking. In practice, Mr. Ngom is being held there in the same
conditions as in an ordinary jail, without access to the medical treatment he needs. Since his
transfer, he has not received any specialized care, medical follow-up or appropriate food or
had any access to medication.
22.
On 8 October 2025, according to the source, the Financial Indictment Division of the
Court of Appeals of Dakar upheld the denial of the motion for conditional release but ordered
Mr. Ngom’s transfer to a hospital so that he could receive appropriate medical care. No
transfer has taken place, and Mr. Ngom is still incarcerated in the special ward.
(iii)
Tahirou Sarr
23.
The source notes that Mr. Sarr, too, featured prominently in a report, dated
20 December 2024, of the National Financial Information Processing Unit. The source claims
that this single report, which is based exclusively on suspicious transaction reports submitted
by financial institutions, describes financial flows in general terms. There have been no
accounting, tax or economic audits, no financial reviews and no hearings with the individuals
or entities concerned.
24.
On the strength of this report, Mr. Sarr, according to the source, was charged on
28 February 2025 with criminal conspiracy, embezzlement of public funds and
money-laundering and was immediately detained in custody and incarcerated at the Rebeuss
detention facility.
25.
The source notes that, despite the financial guarantees that were offered, Mr. Sarr’s
motions for release were denied on several occasions, including on 2 May and 3 June 2025,
on the grounds that he posed a risk of pressuring witnesses, conniving with alleged
co-conspirators or accomplices and causing a disturbance.
26.
The source contends that Mr. Sarr, like Mr. Ngom, was never made aware of the facts
underlying the charges. Such information as he received, which included nothing pertaining
to the actual acts of which he was accused, contained only general descriptions of offences.
27.
Similarly, according to the source, the proceedings against Mr. Sarr have been
characterized, from the outset of the case, by a complete lack of investigative work. Since his
indictment and incarceration on 28 February 2025, he has not been heard, no further requests
for evidence have been made and no new documents have been added to the case file. In
other words, according to the source, the case file has remained exactly the same since
Mr. Sarr was taken into custody and consists solely of the unsubstantiated report from the
National Financial Information Processing Unit.
28.
Although Mr. Sarr has been able to consult his lawyers after being arrested, the
conditions under which this access is granted do not, in the source’s view, facilitate the
effective exercise of his right to due process of law. Without access to the factual evidence
for the charges, Mr. Sarr’s lawyers will be unable to contest either the charges or the grounds
for his detention, thereby rendering any appeals entirely futile.
29.
The source argues that the conditions of Mr. Sarr’s detention at the Rebeuss facility
must be assessed in the light of the findings set out by the National Observatory of Places of
Deprivation of Liberty in its 2023 annual report. The facility is dilapidated, the buildings are
run-down and the infrastructure fails to meet minimum standards for safety and dignity.
Inmates sleep in cramped, cluttered spaces, often, as a result of a shortage of mattresses and
suitable beds, on the floor. According to the National Observatory, the ministerial decree
under which there is meant to be a sleeping area of at least 1.35 m2 per inmate is not being
complied with in most of the facilities it visited, including Rebeuss. Also highlighted in the
report are serious shortcomings in access to healthcare, as infirmaries are generally limited
to a single room lacking basic amenities such as a source of water, sanitation facilities and
appropriate equipment. The medical staff consists almost exclusively of prison guards with
basic training, and specialized medical personnel are rarely present, making it impossible to
treat chronic or complex conditions. Furthermore, the body searches that are done upon
admission systematically take place in stalls without doors or roofs, in violation of the
principle of dignity and international norms.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
5
(iv)
Legal analysis
30.
The source submits that the detention of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr is arbitrary under
categories I, II and III of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention.
31.
The source asserts first that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr
constitutes a failure to comply with the fundamental requirements set forth in article 9 of the
Covenant, as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee, and the 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.2 According to the source, the reasons for
arresting a person must be specific, understandable and relate to the specific charges brought
against the person; providing only the general legal basis of the arrest does not suffice.3
32.
In this case, neither Mr. Ngom nor Mr. Sarr has, according to the source, been
informed of the acts constituting the alleged offences. No preliminary hearing was held
before they were taken into custody, and no documents from the case file were provided,
even though the case hinged solely on a report from National Financial Information
Processing Unit. That failure to provide information is, in the source’s view, a flagrant
violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
33.
The source maintains that neither Mr. Ngom nor Mr. Sarr was actually brought before
a judge for a hearing on the reasons for their arrest. No hearing was held by a prosecutor or
an investigating judge either before or after they were taken into custody, in breach of
article 9 (3) of the Covenant.4
34.
The source emphasizes that, under article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
pretrial detention – for an indefinite period and without any requirement for periodic review
– is mandatory for offences involving embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds.
The source notes that pretrial detention must always be based on an individualized
determination 5 and that the automatic and mandatory nature of pretrial detention under
Senegalese law is in direct violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
35.
The source asserts, furthermore, that the right of any person deprived of his or her
liberty to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay
on the lawfulness of his or her detention and order his or her release if the detention is
unlawful, is guaranteed by article 9 (4)6 of the Covenant and reiterated in principles 7–9 of
the 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.
36.
The source claims that the decisions made by the investigating judge and the
Indictment Division were based on generalities in which the criminal charges were simply
reiterated and no analysis of the facts was attempted. According to the source, such circular
reasoning, in which the mere reiteration of the charges is used to justify detention, renders
judicial review meaningless and is contrary to article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
37.
The source also claims that, because they were not given a hearing or informed of the
reasons for their arrest, Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr were unable to effectively contest the charges
or the grounds cited for their continued detention, rendering any appeal futile, in violation of
article 9 (4).
38.
Lastly, the source points out that the medical reports, all of which concluded that the
detention of Mr. Ngom was incompatible with his state of health, were ignored, even though
they constituted objective evidence for the necessity of an immediate review of his detention.
The Indictment Division acknowledged the need for a medical transfer, but nothing was ever
done in follow-up to that decision.
2 A/HRC/30/37, annex.
3 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 24–27.
4 Ibid., para. 33.
5 Ibid., paras. 38 and 39.
6 Ibid., paras. 41–45.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
6
GE.26-06984
39.
According to the source, an analysis of the broader context, public statements by the
authorities and the procedural timeline suggests that the charges brought against Mr. Ngom
are politically motivated rather than based on legal grounds, making his detention arbitrary
under category II.
40.
The source asserts that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ngom is a result of his exercise
of rights enshrined in the Covenant or is intended to punish him for his exercise of those
rights, in particular the rights to freedom of expression and association and the rights to take
part in the conduct of public affairs, to be elected, to hold representative office and to have
access to public service, as provided for in articles 19, 22, and 25 of the Covenant.
41.
The source points to a post-election climate marked by a series of arrests of political
figures linked to the former Government, including opposition members, journalists and
critics. The source notes, too, that Mr. Ngom was specifically and publicly identified as a
political target even before the institution of any legal proceedings. According to the source,
the public statement made by the Prime Minister, the highest authority overseeing
government action and influencing the courts, during the legislative campaign in October and
November 2024 attests to a determination to deprive Mr. Ngom of political credibility and
shows that the criminal proceedings against him were used to prevent a national lawmaker
from fulfilling his mandate. In addition, the source notes that Mr. Ngom is one of the most
influential political figures in the region where the commune of Agnams is located, in the
north-east of the country, as he is both mayor of the commune and a member of the National
Assembly and is a prominent figure in the local political landscape. His voter base,
traditionally associated with the previous Administration, makes him a strategic actor and a
major local political rival.
42.
The source states that Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr were arrested just a few weeks after the
Prime Minister’s statement; they were arrested based solely on an administrative report
consisting of nothing other than reports of suspicious transactions submitted by banks that
had not been investigated and were immediately placed in pretrial detention without a
hearing, without an investigation and without being informed of the reasons for the arrest.
Furthermore, the vote to lift Mr. Ngom’s parliamentary immunity took place without a
discussion, the disclosure of relevant evidence or the presentation of factual evidence, in clear
violation of the safeguards associated with parliamentary immunity.
43.
According to the source, the serious and repeated violations of procedural safeguards,
the complete lack of an investigation since the arrest of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr and the haste
with which parliamentary immunity was lifted without discussion of any sort show that the
proceedings have been instituted not to uncover the truth but to deprive opposition political
figures of credibility and prevent a prominent figure viewed as close to the former
Government from acting in his political capacity or engaging in public life.
44.
With regard to category III of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention,
the source contends that the cases of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr reveal serious violations of the
international norms relating to conditions of detention, access to medical care and the
effective exercise of the right to a fair trial.
45.
The source stresses that all persons deprived of their liberty are to be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. According to the
source, the detention of Mr. Sarr at the Rebeuss facility, where the National Observatory of
Places of Deprivation of Liberty has documented substandard conditions, including chronic
overcrowding, a lack of privacy and a lack of sanitary facilities, constitutes a clear violation
of principle 1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment and rules 12–19 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
46.
With regard to Mr. Ngom, the source believes that the special ward at Aristide Le
Dantec Hospital is a prison annex that has lacked hospital services since the hospital closed
in 2022 and does not meet any of the minimum standards for a medical facility. Mr. Ngom,
according to the source, is still being held in strict prison conditions in facilities that lack the
necessary medical equipment and does not receive specialized care. In addition, the source
notes that two medical reports, dated 2 June and 7 August 2025, concluded that Mr. Ngom’s
state of health is incompatible with detention and that he is at considerable risk of sudden
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
7
nocturnal death. Despite these consistent conclusions, there has been no specialized medical
monitoring or appropriate treatment or therapy; the hospitalization order issued by the
Indictment Division has, according to the source, been ignored.
47.
The source therefore concludes that principles 1 and 24 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment or
Imprisonment, rules 24–27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and article 10 (1) of the Covenant
have been blatantly violated.
48.
The source adds that Mr. Ngom’s meetings with his lawyers at the special ward take
place in the hallway, in plain view, directly across from the prison administration office, and
that they can easily be overheard, since they do not take place in a designated room and no
arrangements have been made to ensure that these discussions are confidential. Prison guards
were in the immediate vicinity and could interrupt or monitor the conversation at any time.
The source asserts that these conditions constitute a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the
Covenant, principles 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and principle 9 of the 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.
(b)
Response from the Government
49.
On 12 December 2025, the Working Group transmitted a communication to the
Government of Senegal concerning Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr and requesting that it provide
detailed information on the individuals in question by 10 February 2026 and guarantee their
physical and mental well-being.
50.
On 6 February 2026, the Government transmitted its response, in which it stated that
Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr had been arrested on the basis of two detailed reports from the
National Financial Information Processing Unit raising serious suspicions of
money-laundering involving a total of 125 billion CFA francs, stemming primarily from
unjustified transfers made by the Treasury to Mr. Sarr.
51.
According to the Government, these reports revealed illicit financial flows consisting
of numerous payments to shell companies and kickbacks paid to Mr. Ngom after each
transfer. Mr. Ngom is suspected of having facilitated the receipt of these payments and of
thereby having helped launder funds of allegedly illicit origin.
52.
Upon receipt of these reports, the Financial Prosecutor, according to the Government,
immediately referred the matter to the competent judicial authority – in this case, the
President of panel of investigating judges of the financial judicial division – in accordance
with article 66 of the Act (No. 2024-08) of 14 February 2024 on Combating Money-
Laundering, the Financing of Terrorism and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction. The Government emphasizes that this uniform Act applies to all the countries
of the West African Economic and Monetary Union and does not allow the Public Prosecutor,
upon receipt of a report from the National Financial Information Processing Unit, to refer the
matter to a fact-finding unit for investigations in addition to those conducted by the
Processing Unit.
53.
After the referral of the case, the President of the panel of investigating judges charged
Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr with conspiracy to launder money, money-laundering and
embezzlement of public funds – and, in Mr. Ngom’s case, with accessory to the
misappropriation of corporate assets – pursuant to articles 9, 184, and 185 of Act
No. 2024-08, articles 45-3, 46, 153–155, 238, and 239 of the Criminal Code, article 891 of
the Uniform Act on Commercial Firms and article 35 of the Act (No. 2018-13) of 27 April
2018 on the Punishment for Offences under the Uniform Act.
54.
The Government explains that, under article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
anyone charged with offences involving missing public funds of an amount equal to or greater
than 1 million CFA francs who has not reimbursed the missing funds, provided security for
the full amount or raised any serious objections is to be taken into custody. Since Mr. Ngom
and Mr. Sarr failed to meet these requirements, the investigating judge ordered that they be
detained in custody at their initial hearing.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
8
GE.26-06984
55.
The Government explains that the indictment is adversarial in nature, since it involves
having the investigating judge notify the person being formally charged of the charges against
him or her. At this stage, the person being charged is represented by counsel and may make
any statements he or she wishes, which will appear in the verbatim record of the initial
appearance. If the person being charged so wishes, he or she may submit to the investigating
judge any document or evidence that he or she believes will support his or her case. Similarly,
in the interest of ensuring the right to a fair trial, counsel for the person being formally
charged may make statements during this initial appearance. In accordance with article 14 of
the Covenant, lawyers also have the right to review the evidence against their clients
contained in the administrative investigation report before the indictment. The Government
argues that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr is based on judicial decisions
that are duly reasoned, grounded in legal provisions and made in strict compliance with the
procedural safeguards provided for under national and international law. Depriving them of
their liberty is, in the Government’s view, a measure commensurate with the seriousness of
the alleged offences and subject to effective and ongoing judicial review, with avenues for
appeal.
56.
All the requests for release made by Mr. Ngom were, according to the Government,
rejected by the investigating judge on the grounds that the conditions set forth in article 140
of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been met. These decisions were upheld by the
Financial Indictment Division.
57.
The Government asserts, too, that, according to the medical reports, including the
second opinion, Mr. Ngom’s state of health did not preclude him from being held in any form
of detention, including in a hospital, as provided for in article 140 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, in the absence of serious objections or the posting of bail of an amount greater
than or equal to the amount of missing funds. The Government notes that, despite the
monetary and in-kind bail posted by Mr. Sarr in support of his request for release, the judge
held that posting bail does not confer an automatic right to conditional release when there
remain serious risks of collusion, concealment or tampering with evidence, as well as a risk
of serious and persistent breaches of the peace. The Court of Appeals upheld the rejection of
the request, noting the judge’s discretionary authority to determine whether release is
appropriate.
58.
On 7 January 2026, according to the Government, the President of the panel of
investigating judges of the financial judicial division, finding that there were serious
objections to detention within the meaning of article 140, ordered the revocation of the
warrant for the detention of Mr. Sarr and had him placed under court supervision. Mr. Sarr
has been released, proof that continued detention is based solely on compliance with law and
the needs of the investigation.
59.
The Government states that, after the detention of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr, the prison
authorities immediately took all necessary measures to ensure the best possible conditions of
detention and to safeguard their health. Mr. Ngom, according to the Government, was placed
in the special ward at Aristide Le Dantec Hospital, in a private room with air conditioning
and a private bathroom. He receives regular visits from his lawyers, relatives and other people
close to him in a suitable, well-equipped room. Mr. Ngom receives food assistance in addition
to the meals his family sends him every day. Mr. Sarr, for his part, was held at Cap Manuel
Detention and Correctional Facility, in a suitable cell that he shared with other detainees. He
head access to the same amenities and did not report any violations before being released.
60.
The Government emphasizes that the prison system employs medical staff from the
health services, including medical specialists. The prison system has a secure medical unit
for individuals requiring special care. Its proximity to Dakar’s main hospital makes it possible
for detained persons to receive specialized care while renovations are under way at Aristide
Le Dantec Hospital. Mr. Ngom has regular check-ups and receives appropriate treatment. He
had physical therapy sessions under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer of the Prison
Administration, who regularly visited the special ward to check on the detainees’ health and
ensure their care and medical follow-up. Mr. Ngom is also receiving regular treatment at the
main hospital in Dakar and the military hospital in Ouakam, both of which specialize in
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
9
treating the medical conditions he has. The medical care he is given is free of charge.
Mr. Sarr, the Government notes, also had access to these services but never complained of
any illness.
61.
The Government reiterates that it does not interfere in the conduct of judicial
proceedings, in accordance with the principle of judicial independence guaranteed by the
Constitution and the Act on the Statute of Judges and Prosecutors. It notes that judges have
full control over the conduct, proceedings and timeline of the investigations for which they
are responsible.
62.
The Government asserts that, contrary to the source’s allegations, the investigating
judge has, since the case was referred to him, regularly ordered investigative steps, including
the filing of charges, requests for assistance from other judges and from the police, seizures
and evidentiary hearings, as well as substantive interrogations of the defendants. It notes that
the list of steps that have been taken, which is annexed to its response, attests to the steady
pace of the investigation.
63.
The Government therefore claims that the situation of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr cannot
be considered arbitrary detention.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
64.
Four main points are raised in the additional comments made by the source. The
source asserts that the Government’s response does not meet the Working Group’s
evidentiary requirements, that it confirms the existence of a provision for automatic pretrial
detention incompatible with article 9 of the Covenant, that it highlights an inconsistent and
arbitrary application of this provision, particularly with regard to the continued detention of
Mr. Ngom, and that it offers a misleading account of Mr. Ngom’s health and the conditions
of his detention.
65.
The source asserts, too, that the Government’s response is unsubstantiated, consists
solely of general statements and, contrary to the Government’s claims, contains no list of the
investigative steps that have been taken.
2.
Discussion
66.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. In
determining whether the detention of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr 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.7 Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures
have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.
67.
The Working Group takes note of Mr. Sarr’s release on bail under judicial supervision
on 7 January 2026. It is nonetheless of the view that the seriousness of the allegations justifies
its rendering an opinion, in accordance with paragraph 17 (a) of its working methods, on
whether he was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty.
(a)
Category I
68.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty for which there is no legal basis.
69.
The source states that, at the time of their arrest, Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr were not
informed of the reasons for the charges against them. The source claims that there was no
hearing before or immediately after their detention and that no documents from their case file
have been provided to them since they were placed under formal investigation. The source
underscores the absence of information, whether in terms of dates, specific amounts or their
alleged purpose, on any of the transactions.
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
10
GE.26-06984
70.
According to the Government, the two individuals were arrested on the basis of two
detailed reports from the National Financial Information Processing Unit raising serious
suspicions of money-laundering involving a total of 125 billion CFA francs, stemming
primarily from unjustified transfers made by the Treasury to Mr. Sarr. The Government
explains that being indicted involves having the investigating judge notify the person being
prosecuted of the charges against him or her. It outlines the procedural safeguards associated
with this process, including the right of the accused to be represented by counsel and to make
unsolicited statements, as well as the right of counsel to review the evidence against his or
her clients presented in the administrative investigation report and to submit informed
comments.
71.
The Working Group notes that the right of all persons in custody to be informed as
soon as possible of any charges against them is inherent in article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (2) of the Covenant.8 This right is also set forth in
principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment. As the Human Rights Committee has noted, the
obligation set forth in article 9 (2) has two components: the reasons for the arrest must be
provided immediately upon arrest, and the arrested person must be informed of the charges
against him or her as soon as possible.9 The reasons 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.10
72.
The Working Group notes that, while the source asserts that the individuals were not
interviewed before or immediately after being taken into custody or informed of the charges
against them, the Government states that the indictment procedure involves having the
investigating judge inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation. Although
the Government outlines how an indictment procedure unfolds at an initial appearance before
an investigating judge, it provides no specific information on the appearances of Mr. Ngom
and Mr. Sarr, whether concerning the dates of their initial appearances, copies of the verbatim
records of the hearings or a description of their involvement in the alleged offences. The
Working Group notes that it is not sufficient for a detained person to be informed of the
alleged offences of which he or she has been accused without being informed of the reasons
for the accusation. Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr
were not properly or promptly informed of the charges against them, in violation of
article 9 (2) of the Covenant and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
73.
According to the source, Mr. Ngom has not been heard by either a prosecutor or an
investigating judge since being detained on 27 February 2025, and no investigation has been
conducted since the institution of the proceedings against him. Similarly, the source submits
that Mr. Sarr was not questioned by the investigating judge for nearly a year – between his
arrest on 28 February 2025 and his release on 7 January 2026 – and his lawyers were unable
to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as they had not been apprised of the reasons for
the charges.
74.
The Government does not dispute the source’s allegations regarding the rejection of
the requests for conditional release made by Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr but asserts that they
were rejected because the requirements set out in article 140 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure had not been met.
75.
Under article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant, anyone who is deprived of his or her
liberty is entitled to take proceedings before a court to contest the lawfulness of his or her
detention. This right is also enshrined in principles 8 and 10 of the 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. The Human Rights Committee has noted
that a period of 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a detained
person be brought promptly before a judge and that any delay longer must remain absolutely
8 Opinion No. 25/2022, para. 37.
9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 24–27.
10 Ibid., para. 25, opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69, No. 65/2024, para. 78, and Wenga and Shandwe v.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/86/D/1177/2003), para. 6.2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
11
exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.11 The right to challenge the lawfulness
of one’s detention in court is a human right in its own right, and not having this right is a
human rights violation in and of itself.
76.
The Working Group notes that the Government has not contested the source’s
allegation that Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr were not brought before a judge either before or after
being taken into custody. The source states, too, that neither Mr. Ngom nor Mr. Sarr was able
to challenge his detention because the authorities had not informed their lawyers of the
reasons for the charges. The Government did not directly address this claim, offering instead
only a general explanation of the indictment process containing no specific information on
how it had unfolded in each case. The Working Group is of the view that there is a clear
violation of article 9 of the Covenant when a person is detained for reasons that are not
disclosed to him or her.12 It concludes that Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr were not brought promptly
before a judge or given the opportunity to effectively challenge the lawfulness of their
detention, in violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant and principles 8 and 10 of the
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. The Working Group
finds, too, that the considerable delay in bringing detained persons before a court so that they
may challenge the lawfulness of their detention violates their right, enshrined in article 2 (3)
of the Covenant, to an effective remedy.
77.
The Working Group notes that the Government, rather than rebutting the source’s
claim that article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is incompatible with article 9 (3) of
the Covenant because it provides for mandatory pretrial detention for some offences for an
indefinite period and without any requirement for periodic review, asserts that Mr. Ngom and
Mr. Sarr did not meet the conditions for release set out in article 140.
78.
The Working Group has consistently held that mandatory pretrial detention violates
international human rights law.13 Pretrial detention must be an exceptional measure of the
shortest possible duration and must be taken only following an individualized assessment by
the judiciary of risks such as flight or interference with the investigation.14 According to the
Human Rights Committee, it should be based not on the potential sentence for the crime but
on a determination of necessity.15 In its report on its official visit to Senegal in 2009, the
Working Group noted that, in criminal proceedings, there was no limit to the duration of
pretrial detention and that the only possible remedy was to apply for release on bail. 16
Consequently, it had recommended that measures be taken to reduce the proportion of pretrial
detainees and, as far as reasonable, the duration of this detention.17
79.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that, as it leaves judges with only limited
discretion, if any, to consider the specific circumstances of each case of detention, the pretrial
detention regime provided for in article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
incompatible with article 9 (3) of the Covenant.18 It fails to provide for an individualized
determination of whether the detained person poses a risk of flight or failure to cooperate or
a prima facie threat to security or for periodic re-examination of whether pretrial detention
continues to be reasonable and necessary in the light of possible alternatives.19 In this case,
the Working Group is of the view that, by not examining the facts of the case or considering
other pretrial measures, the authorities failed to make a sound argument for the pretrial
detention of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr. Consequently, it is of the opinion that their detention
constitutes a breach of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
12 Opinions No. 73/2018, para. 49, No. 12/2020, para. 41, and No. 65/2024, para. 84.
13 See opinions No. 16/2018, No. 14/2019 and No. 8/2023.
14 Opinion No. 9/2022, para. 48.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
16 A/HRC/13/30/Add.3, para. 40.
17 Ibid., para. 82.
18 European Court of Human Rights, Piruzyan v. Armenia, application No. 33376/07, Judgment, 26 June
2012, para. 105. See also opinions No. 24/2015, para. 37, and No. 61/2018, para. 48.
19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
12
GE.26-06984
80.
The Working Group therefore finds that there is no valid legal basis for the deprivation
of liberty of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr and that it falls within category I of the Working Group’s
categories of arbitrary detention.
(b)
Category II
81.
The source argues that Mr. Ngom was targeted for political reasons, in particular for
his status as an opposition figure and his ties to the former Government, in violation of
articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Covenant. The source asserts that Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr were
arrested a few weeks after a statement made by the Prime Minister during the legislative
campaign of October and November 2024, thereby heightening fears of political repression.
The source also argues that Mr. Ngom’s parliamentary immunity was lifted without
discussion of any sort, the disclosure of documents or the presentation of factual evidence.
The Government maintains that the arrests were made on the basis of reports of
embezzlement of public funds and were unrelated to the exercise of rights. The source
nonetheless contends that the treatment of Mr. Ngom by the Public Prosecution Service,
which differed from its treatment of Mr. Sarr, constitutes further evidence that Mr. Ngom
was targeted for political reasons.
82.
The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant. It protects even that which may
shock, offend or disturb or which may insult an individual or group or criticize an
institution. 20 Article 22 (1) of the Covenant protects the freedom of association, and
article 25 (a) protects the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. The Working
Group has consistently concluded that detention is arbitrary when the circumstances suggest
that the authorities have targeted the individual to prevent him or her from participating in
public life – for example, by instituting criminal proceedings to prevent a political leader
from standing for or holding political office,21 as appears to have been the case here. When
the Working Group has before it cases involving freedom of expression and freedom of
assembly in political contexts, it conducts a particularly thorough review, as the exercise of
these freedoms in the political process touches on the very essence of these fundamental
freedoms.22
83.
The Working Group is of the opinion that the information provided by the
Government is insufficient to demonstrate that the proceedings against Mr. Ngom are
unrelated to his role in the political opposition and are not intended to silence him and his
supporters or to exclude him from political participation.23 The Working Group takes note of
the source’s statement that Mr. Ngom is an influential political figure prominent in the local
political landscape. It is of the view that the treatment of Mr. Ngom, which has differed from
that of Mr. Sarr, even though both individuals were charged on the basis of reports from the
National Financial Information Processing Unit and for the same conduct, suggests that
Mr. Ngom was detained to sideline a political opponent, not for legitimate criminal justice
ends. The Working Group is of the view, too, that the lifting of his immunity, raises questions
of national law and that it does not have sufficient information to express an opinion on this
issue.
84.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that the detention of Mr. Ngom stems
from his exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and opinion, guaranteed in article 19
of the Covenant, to freedom of association, guaranteed in article 22, and to take part in the
conduct of public affairs, guaranteed in article 25. It is of the view that the detention of
Mr. Ngom is therefore arbitrary under category II.
20 Opinions No. 53/2021, No. 28/2025 and No. 56/2025. See also general comment No. 34 (2011),
para. 38.
21 Opinions No. 61/2018, para. 59, No. 23/2021, para. 85, and No. 22/2024, para. 76. See also
A/HRC/36/37, para. 48 (d).
22 Opinion No. 22/2024, para. 77.
23 Opinions No. 91/2017, paras. 80–85 and 96–100, No. 9/2018, paras. 45–47 and 57, and No. 22/2024,
paras. 76–81.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
13
(c)
Category III
85.
In view of its finding that the detention of Mr. Goma is arbitrary under category II,
the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should be held.
86.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that the conditions of
Mr. Ngom’s detention constitute a violation of the rights to due process of law, as provided
for in article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, the Nelson Mandela Rules and principles 1 and 24
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. The source asserts that Mr. Ngom is being held in a prison annex, the special
ward of Aristide Le Dantec Hospital, rather than in an actual medical facility, a situation that,
given his medical conditions, poses serious risks to his health. The source adds that
Mr. Ngom’s requests for conditional release on medical grounds have been rejected, even
though medical experts concluded in two reports that his state of health is incompatible with
detention and that he is at high risk of sudden nocturnal death. In addition, the source asserts
that Mr. Ngom is unable to speak with his lawyers in private while in the facility.
87.
The Government contests these allegations, asserting that the prison authorities have
taken all necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Ngom is held in appropriate conditions and
to safeguard his health. It explains that the special ward is located near Dakar’s main hospital,
allowing detainees such as Mr. Ngom access to specialized care.
88.
The Working Group reiterates that States Parties must comply with United Nations
standards applicable to the treatment of detained persons, including the Nelson Mandela
Rules and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.24 It has noted in the past that detainees who are subjected to
conditions of detention that affect their health, safety or well-being are participating in the
proceedings in less favourable conditions than the prosecution. 25 Consequently, when
conditions are so unsatisfactory that they seriously impair the detained person’s health and
thereby violate the principle of equality, the right to a fair trial is no longer guaranteed, even
if every effort is otherwise made to ensure that the procedural safeguards relating to that right
are in place.26
89.
The Working Group is alarmed by the conditions of Mr. Ngom’s detention and points
to rules 24 (1) and 25–27 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules, as well as the obligation under
article 10 of the Covenant to treat all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. It is claimed that the consistent
conclusion of the medical reports was that keeping Mr. Ngom in detention was incompatible
with his state of health and posed a risk of life-threatening complications, including the risk
of sudden nocturnal death. The Working Group notes that, despite the order by the Financial
Indictment Division of the Dakar Court of Appeals that he be transferred to a hospital,
Mr. Ngom remains in detention in the special ward. The Working Group notes that the denial
of medical care may constitute a form of torture or other ill-treatment prohibited under
international law and that where, as in this instance, there is a risk of death, it may constitute
a violation of the right to life.27
90.
The Working Group recalls that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the
right, pursuant to article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, to have adequate time and facilities
necessary for the preparation of his or her defence and to communicate with counsel of his
or her own choosing.28 Rule 61 of the Nelson Mandela Rules provides that prisoners are to
be provided with adequate opportunity, time and facilities to be visited by and to
communicate and consult with a legal adviser of their own choice, without delay, interception
or censorship and in full confidentiality, on any legal matter, in conformity with applicable
24 General comment No. 21 (1992), para. 5, and Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991),
para. 9.3.
25 E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
26 Opinions No. 27/2022, paras. 72 and 73, and No. 31/2022, para. 99.
27 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18, opinions No. 20/2022, para. 104, No. 65/2022, para. 116, and No. 74/2023,
para. 129.
28 Opinion No. 39/2025, para. 90.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
14
GE.26-06984
domestic law.29 The Human Rights Committee has also emphasized the need for lawyers to
be able to meet their clients in private and to communicate with them in conditions that fully
guarantee the confidentiality of their discussions.30
91.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations that Mr. Ngom was unable to speak
with his lawyer in private in the facility, as their conversations took place in the hallway, in
full view of the prison authorities and could easily be overheard since they had no dedicated
room or guarantee of confidentiality. Since the Government has not refuted this allegation in
detail, the Working Group concludes that article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant has been violated.
92.
The Working Group is of the view that the violations of Mr. Ngom’s right to a fair
trial are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character under
category III.
(d)
Concluding remarks
93.
The Working Group is gravely concerned about the conditions of detention of
Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr, which may constitute a violation of the prohibition against torture
and other ill-treatment under article 7 of the Covenant and the obligation to treat all persons
in detention with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person
under article 10. It urges the Government to take measures to improve prison conditions,
including by ensuring access to medical care for all detained persons, in accordance with
international law.
3.
Disposition
94.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
(a)
The deprivation of liberty of Mouhamadou Ngom (known as Farba Ngom),
being in contravention of articles 3, 9–11 and 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9, 14, 19, 22 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II and III;
(b)
The deprivation of liberty of Tahirou Sarr, being in contravention of articles 3
and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within category I.
95.
The Working Group requests the Government of Senegal to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr 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.
96.
The Working Group is of the view that, taking into account all the circumstances of
the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Ngom immediately, ensure that the
release of Mr. Sarr is unconditional and accord each of them the right to compensation and
other reparations, in accordance with international law.
97.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure that there is a full and
independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of
liberty of Mr. Ngom and Mr. Sarr and to take appropriate measures against those responsible
for the violation of their rights.
98.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, for appropriate action.
99.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible through all official channels, including
judicial authorities, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies.
29 Ibid.
30 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34, Khomidova v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/81/D/1117/2002),
para. 6.4, Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.3, and Gridin v. Russian
Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997), para. 8.5.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/13
GE.26-06984
15
4.
Follow-up procedure
100.
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. Ngom and Mr. Sarr have been released unconditionally and, if
so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Ngom and
Mr. Sarr;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Ngom’s
and Mr. Sarr’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 Senegal with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
101.
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.
102.
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.
103.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.31
[Adopted on 25 March 2026]
31 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.