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.26-05888 (E) 040526 050526
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. 17/2026 concerning Ahmad Assayed Suleiman, also known
as Gika (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 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 25 October 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Egypt a communication concerning Ahmad Assayed
Suleiman, also known as Gika. The Government replied to the communication on
20 December 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);
* Miriam Estrada Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
General Assembly
Distr.: General
5 May 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
2
GE.26-05888
(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.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Ahmad Assayed Suleiman, also known as Gika, is an Egyptian national and political
activist born on 25 November 1996 in Al-Qalyubiyah Governorate, Egypt, where he resides.
5.
Mr. Suleiman has previously been arrested and detained on at least three occasions.
In 2016, he was allegedly detained for three months following his participation in protests
denouncing the transfer by Egypt of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. In 2017,
following his participation in a peaceful demonstration marking the anniversary of the 2011
Egyptian revolution, the authorities purportedly arrested and detained him for 17 months at
a National Security Agency facility in Shubra al-Khaima in Al-Qalyubiyah. After his release,
the Agency continued to monitor Mr. Suleiman, requiring him to report regularly to its
premises in Shubra al-Khaima. In 2021, he was allegedly detained for one month, following
a request from the Agency for him to report to its headquarters in Shubra al-Khaima.
(i)
Arrest and detention
a.
First period of enforced disappearance: 13 June–11 August 2023
6.
According to the source, on 13 June 2023, the National Security Agency contacted
Mr. Suleiman’s family by telephone to inform them that he had been unofficially summoned
to its headquarters in Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station. The National Security Agency did not
provide a reason for the summons.
7.
At approximately noon the same day, Mr. Suleiman allegedly left his house to report
to the National Security Agency headquarters. At approximately 4 p.m., five men in civilian
clothes, who the source states were likely Agency officers, arrived at Mr. Suleiman’s
residence together with Mr. Suleiman.
8.
The officers reportedly searched the house and confiscated mobile telephones
belonging to Mr. Suleiman and a family member, before leaving with Mr. Suleiman. They
did not inform Mr. Suleiman or his family where they were taking him.
9.
On 7 August 2023, Mr. Suleiman’s family submitted a written request to the Public
Prosecutor in Al-Qalyubiyah to ascertain his place of detention, which was filed as petition
No. 43094 of 2023. The Public Prosecutor reportedly did not respond to the request.
10.
On 11 August 2023, Mr. Suleiman was brought before the Al-Qalyubiyah Prosecution
Office, where the Deputy Public Prosecutor interrogated him about his alleged links to
terrorist organizations. While at the Prosecution Office, Mr. Suleiman allegedly informed his
lawyer that he had been detained at the National Security Agency headquarters at
Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station since 13 June 2023.
11.
After the interrogation, the Deputy Public Prosecutor charged Mr. Suleiman with
joining a terrorist group, pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Act (Law No. 94 of 2015), in case
No. 13034 of 2023. Pending trial, the Deputy Public Prosecutor granted Mr. Suleiman bail
under the condition that he reside at his home address.
b.
Second period of enforced disappearance: 11 August–2 September 2023
12.
Despite the granting of bail on 11 August 2023, the National Security Agency did not
release Mr. Suleiman, and his whereabouts remained unknown to his family and lawyer.
13.
On 12 August 2023, both Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer and a family member reportedly
went to Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station to enquire about his whereabouts. The police officers
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
3
informed them that Mr. Suleiman was not in their custody and was being held by the National
Security Agency. His exact location, however, was not disclosed.
14.
On 15 August 2023, Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer filed petition No. 4518 of 2023 with the
Public Prosecutor of Al-Qalyubiyah, requesting an investigation into the non-execution of
the bail that had been granted and the resulting enforced disappearance of Mr. Suleiman after
his interrogation on 11 August 2023. The source claims that the Public Prosecutor refused to
open an investigation.
15.
On 2 September 2023, Mr. Suleiman was reportedly brought before the Public
Prosecutor of Kafr Shukr, in Al-Qalyubiyah. The Public Prosecutor interrogated
Mr. Suleiman in connection with case No. 3117 of 2023, regarding his alleged links to
terrorist organizations, and charged him with the publication and broadcast of false news,
pursuant to article 188 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer noted that he showed
signs of severe fatigue, and was informed by Mr. Suleiman that he had been detained since
13 June 2023 at the National Security Agency headquarters at Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station.
After being interrogated and charged in case No. 3117 of 2023, Mr. Suleiman was remanded
into custody and transferred on the same day to Abu Zaabal Correction and Rehabilitation
Centre in Al-Qalyubiyah.
c.
Third period of enforced disappearance: 23 January–26 February 2024
16.
On 21 January 2024, Mr. Suleiman reportedly appeared before an investigating judge
regarding case No. 3117 of 2023 at Banha Criminal Court. The investigating judge granted
Mr. Suleiman bail, subject to a bond of 3,000 Egyptian pounds. The Public Prosecutor
appealed the decision to grant bail. Pending the appeal, Mr. Suleiman was taken to the
National Security Agency headquarters in Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station.
17.
On 22 January 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed. The next day,
despite paying 3,000 Egyptian pounds, Mr. Suleiman was not released.
18.
On 3 February 2024, Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer filed petition No. 669834 of 2024 with
the Public Prosecutor of Al-Qalyubiyah to request the disclosure of Mr. Suleiman’s place of
detention and to demand an investigation into his enforced disappearances and the
non-execution of the two bail orders. The Public Prosecutor allegedly refused to initiate an
investigation. Although he informed Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer that the petition was being
processed, he did not acknowledge his detention.
19.
On 4 February 2024, a member of Mr. Suleiman’s family reportedly went to
Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station to enquire as to Mr. Suleiman’s whereabouts. A police officer
informed the family member that Mr. Suleiman was not there, but did not state that he was
detained elsewhere.
20.
On 7 February 2024, Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer filed petition No. 674583 of 2024, with
the same requests that had been included in the petition of 3 February 2024. The Public
Prosecutor reportedly denied the request to disclose Mr. Suleiman’s place of detention and
did not acknowledge that he was detained.
21.
On 26 February 2024, Mr. Suleiman was allegedly brought before the Supreme State
Security Prosecution headquarters in the Fifth Settlement in Cairo. He was interrogated as
part of case No. 165 of 2024, regarding his supposed links to terrorist organizations. The
Supreme State Security Prosecution charged him with joining and financing a terrorist group
and remanded him in pretrial detention.
22.
On the same occasion, Mr. Suleiman reportedly informed his lawyer that he had been
detained since 23 January 2024 at the National Security Agency headquarters in
Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station. He also relayed to his lawyer that he was suffering from severe
back pain and requested to be examined by a specialized radiologist at the prison hospital or
by a private doctor at his own expense.
23.
After his interrogation, Mr. Suleiman was transferred to the 10th of Ramadan
Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre in Al-Sharqiyah Governorate pending trial. However,
no trial date has been set.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
4
GE.26-05888
24.
As a result of Mr. Suleiman’s back pain, on 4 March 2024, his lawyer reportedly
submitted to the Supreme State Security Prosecution a formal request for a medical
examination. The prosecution rejected the request without a reason. To date, Mr. Suleiman
has not been examined by a doctor. He has only been provided with basic painkillers and
continues to suffer from persistent back pain.
d.
Renewal of pretrial detention
25.
Between 4 March and 15 July 2024, the Supreme State Security Prosecution renewed
Mr. Suleiman’s pretrial detention 10 times. During a pretrial hearing on 28 May 2024,
Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer allegedly asked to be granted access to the case file and for the details
of the charges against his client, but the presiding judge refused.
26.
On 15 July 2024, the Appellate Misdemeanour Court in Cairo extended
Mr. Suleiman’s pretrial detention for 45 days. Since then, Mr. Suleiman’s pretrial detention
has reportedly been renewed six times for 45-day periods without reasons being provided to
justify the renewals. By September 2025, Mr. Suleiman had spent more than 800 days in
pretrial detention.
27.
No precise details are available in relation to the factual allegations underpinning the
charges against Mr. Suleiman, as his lawyer has been denied access to all case files by the
Public Prosecutor in each of the cases, despite his repeated requests for access. During the
hearings that have taken place in all three cases, the prosecution merely referred to the
existence of reports prepared by the National Security Agency without any further detail.
Throughout all stages of the investigations, no evidence to substantiate the charges against
Mr. Suleiman has been presented. The alleged terrorist group to which he is said to belong
has not been identified and Mr. Suleiman has not been questioned by the authorities regarding
his alleged role or concerning specific alleged acts that could demonstrate his membership in
such a group.
(ii)
Legal analysis
28.
The source argues that Mr. Suleiman’s detention is arbitrary under categories I, II and
III as outlined in the Working Group’s methods of work.
a.
Categories I and III
29.
The source argues that, under article 54 of the Constitution, the National Security
Agency was required to serve Mr. Suleiman with a judicial warrant to execute his arrest,
given that the arrest was not made in flagrante delicto. The source submits that article 139 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure guarantees Mr. Suleiman the right to access a lawyer during
all the investigative, pretrial and trial phases of the criminal cases against him, starting from
the time of his arrest.
30.
According to the source, under article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an
investigating judge may only order detention pending trial when doing so is deemed
necessary. Pretrial detention cannot exceed two years, even for offences punishable by life
imprisonment. Under article 13 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the crime of joining and financing
a terrorist group is one such offence.
31.
The source explains that, under article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Supreme State Security Prosecution has the authority to order pretrial detention for an initial
period of 15 days and, under articles 202 and 206 bis, is authorized to conduct detention
review hearings and extend pretrial detention in 15-day increments up to 150 days. Thereafter,
the Appellate Misdemeanour Court in Cairo can extend pretrial detention for 45-day intervals
until the maximum two-year detention limit.
32.
The source submits that, in the light of the authorities’ violation of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Constitution and court-sanctioned conditional bail orders, there is no
legal basis justifying Mr. Suleiman’s detention, making his detention arbitrary under
category I. The source considers that Mr. Suleiman’s detention also falls within category III
as a result of the authorities’ non-observance of international norms relating to the rights to
liberty and security of person and to a fair trial.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
5
33.
The source argues that the Egyptian authorities failed to abide by article 9 (1) of the
Covenant, which provides that no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds
and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. Under article 10 (2) of the
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Egypt is required
to promptly provide accurate information to detainees’ legal counsel regarding their clients’
detention. In the present case, the authorities failed to notify Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer as to his
place of detention. In accordance with articles 9 (2) and 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, suspects
must be guaranteed access to legal representation from the outset of their detention.
34.
The source submits that the authorities failed to serve Mr. Suleiman with a formal
judicial warrant detailing the basis of his arrest and the nature of the charges against him, in
violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant. Referring to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, according
to which pretrial detention must be based on an individualized determination and only
ordered as a last resort, the source also contends that the authorities failed to provide
substantive reasons as to why Mr. Suleiman’s pretrial detention was necessary.
35.
The source argues that Mr. Suleiman was subjected to the practice of “recycling” of
cases, or tadweer, with the aim of unlawfully circumventing the conditional bail orders by
bringing consecutive similar charges and ordering new periods of pretrial detention in
relation to the same conduct for which he had already been granted conditional bail. Under
the Covenant, any operative judicial order for release must be executed immediately and
failure to do so renders the detention arbitrary. Moreover, the practice of recycling cases is
incompatible with an accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time and the presumption
of liberty pending trial.2
36.
The source points out that, according to the Human Rights Committee, certain
conditions of detention, such as the denial of access to counsel and family, may result in
procedural violations of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant.3 In this regard, it submits that
the authorities failed to allow Mr. Suleiman to contact his family for extended periods of time
while detained.
37.
The source argues that Mr. Suleiman was not presented promptly before a judicial
authority in relation to the three criminal charges against him, in violation of his right under
article 9 (3) of the Covenant to have a judge rule on the lawfulness of his arrest and detention.
Under this provision, there is a presumption of release pending trial, which the authorities
must ensure takes place within a reasonable time, or else release the detainee. The State bears
the burden of proving that the initial arrest or detention was lawful and that the continuing
detention is necessary and proportionate. Any form of incommunicado detention that
prevents compliance with the right to be presented promptly before a judge violates article 9
(3) of the Covenant.4 Moreover, the failure of the Public Prosecutor to assess the legality of
Mr. Suleiman’s detention despite four habeas corpus petitions being filed5 is in violation of
article 9 (4) of the Covenant.6 In addition, the refusal to provide Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer with
access to the case file and the details of the charges against him violates Mr. Suleiman’s
rights under articles 9 (2) and 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
38.
The source considers that the numerous aforementioned procedural violations enabled
the authorities to forcibly disappear Mr. Suleiman during three distinct periods. Egypt
flagrantly violated its jus cogens obligations to protect Mr. Suleiman from enforced
disappearance under customary international law. As codified in the Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, enforced disappearance constitutes
a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.7
2 Opinion No. 60/2022, paras. 73 and 74.
3 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 57.
4 Ibid., para. 35.
5 Petition No. 43094 of 2023, submitted on 7 August 2023; petition No. 4518 of 2023, submitted on
15 August 2023; petition No. 669834 of 2024, submitted on 3 February 2024; and petition
No. 674583 of 2024, submitted on 7 February 2024.
6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 47.
7 A/HRC/51/31/Add.3, paras. 74–76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
6
GE.26-05888
39.
The source considers that these violations emerge from the decision of the authorities
to detain Mr. Suleiman for extended periods of time at the headquarters of the National
Security Agency at Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station, despite these headquarters not being a
registered place of detention under article 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under
article 10 (1) of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, Egypt is required to ensure that any person deprived of liberty is held in an
officially recognized place of detention. The refusal on 4 February 2024 of the police officer
at the Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station to disclose to Mr. Suleiman’s family that he was held at
that police station contravened article 10 (2) of the Declaration, which provides that accurate
information on the detention of detainees is to be made available to detainees’ family
members.
40.
Finally, the source argues that the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s refusal to investigate
allegations concerning Mr. Suleiman’s enforced disappearances, despite the petitions by his
lawyer to determine his whereabouts, contravened article 13 (1) of the Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, as any person having knowledge or
a legitimate interest who alleges that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance
has the right to complain to a State authority and to have that complaint investigated.
b.
Category II
41.
According to the source, the authorities used pretrial detention as a form of retribution
for Mr. Suleiman’s political activism and participation in peaceful protests, which were a
legitimate exercise of the rights protected under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, and
articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
42.
The source argues that, under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, arrest or detention is
arbitrary if it is used as a punishment for the legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of
expression and freedom of assembly.8
(b)
Response from the Government
43.
On 1 December 2025, 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 January 2026, detailed information about
Mr. Suleiman’s current situation and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued
detention and its compatibility with the obligations of Egypt under international human rights
law, in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working
Group called upon the Government to ensure his physical and mental integrity. The
Government, upon requesting and duly being granted an extension in accordance with the
Working Group’s working methods, submitted a response on 27 February.
44.
In its response, the Government explains the circumstances of the arrests and
detentions of Mr. Suleiman. In relation to case No. 13043 of 2023 before the Qalyub
Misdemeanour Court, on 6 August 2023, Mr. Suleiman was arrested based on a judicial
warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor, dated 5 August 2023. This was based on
investigations that concluded that Mr. Suleiman held takfirist ideas and embraced a jihadist
ideology based on declaring police and army personnel to be infidels and targeting members
of the Christian community. He was interrogated on 7 August 2023, which was within the
legal period during which the accused must be brought before the competent investigating
authority, namely the Public Prosecutor, and charged with knowingly joining a terrorist group
and promoting the aims of a terrorist group through speech, writing and action. Mr. Suleiman
denied the charges against him. The Public Prosecutor decided to remand him in custody for
four days, under the applicable legal grounds for preventive detention. On 10 August 2023,
the South Banha Court of First Instance decided to release Mr. Suleiman on bail. The case
was referred to the Supreme State Security Prosecution to be included in a case under its
investigation.
45.
Regarding case No. 3117 of 2023 before the Kafr Shukr Misdemeanour Court, on
27 August 2023, Mr. Suleiman was rearrested based on a judicial warrant issued by the Public
8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
7
Prosecutor, dated 24 August 2023. Mr. Suleiman was interrogated on 27 August 2023 –
namely within the legal period – and charged with knowingly joining a terrorist group and
promoting the aims of a terrorist group through speech, writing and action. Mr. Suleiman
denied the charges against him. The Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to detain him for 15
days, based on the legally stipulated grounds for preventive detention. Mr. Suleiman appealed
the decision and, on 18 September 2023, the South Banha Court of First Instance accepted
the appeal. The case was referred to the Supreme State Security Prosecution to be included
in the same case pending before it.
46.
With respect to case No. 28428 of 2025 before the Marj Criminal Court, registered
under case No. 4337 of 2025, East Cairo, previously registered under case No. 165 of 2024,
Supreme State Security, a judicial warrant was issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office based
on security investigations. Consequently, Mr. Suleiman was arrested and interrogated, in the
presence of his lawyer, at the Public Prosecutor’s Office on charges of joining a terrorist
group with knowledge of its objectives, committing the crime of financing terrorism and
using an international information network to exchange messages and issue instructions
between the terrorist group and its members. Mr. Suleiman denied the charges. In the
presence of his defence, he was presented with evidence of his commission of those crimes.
Mr. Suleiman and his defence were also given the opportunity to present their arguments,
after which the Public Prosecutor ordered his remand in custody pending trial, finding legal
grounds for continued detention, on 11 November 2025. The case is still pending before the
court.
47.
With regard to the allegation that Mr. Suleiman was subjected to torture during his
detention, the investigating authority questioned Mr. Suleiman during the investigation and
found no injuries that would substantiate that allegation. Further, when asked whether he had
any hidden injuries and whether he had any complaints, he replied in the negative, in the
presence of his lawyer.
48.
Regarding the allegation that Mr. Suleiman was detained at National Security Agency
headquarters in violation of the law, the role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office extends to
overseeing the implementation of the law regulating correctional centres and the rights and
duties of inmates.
49.
In respect to the allegation of the recycling of cases, the Public Prosecutor’s Office
exercises its powers independently. In the event of reports of failure to implement decisions
to release defendants, the Office investigates the reports and acts in accordance with the law.
50.
Regarding the legality of the measures taken against Mr. Suleiman, the Public
Prosecutor’s Office is an independent and impartial body and an integral part of the
judiciary.9 Mr. Suleiman was arrested after the Public Prosecutor’s Office had exercised its
discretionary authority, based on the information and evidence available to it, and issued a
warrant in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.10 Mr. Suleiman
was interrogated and presented with the criminal charges against him, as well as with the
available information and other evidence revealed by the investigations. The interrogation
procedures were carried out after his lawyer was invited to attend the investigation
procedures, within 24 hours of his arrest, namely, within the legal time limit.
51.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to remand Mr. Suleiman in custody pending
investigation, based on objective considerations, including the fear of harming the interests
of the investigation. Mr. Suleiman was also subject to periodic hearings, during which the
order for his remand in custody was reviewed by a competent judge, and he and his lawyer
were given the opportunity to make oral submissions, file requests and raise objections.
9 Constitution, art. 189.
10 Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 35, 40, 46 and 91. Information and investigations, if deemed
reliable by the investigating authorities, are considered sufficient evidence to issue a search warrant.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
8
GE.26-05888
52.
With respect to allegations regarding detention conditions and healthcare,
Mr. Suleiman enjoys full medical care and regular review of his medical file. Mr. Suleiman
is detained at the 10th of Ramadan Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, where he receives
his meals, is allowed to exercise, receives regular family visits and has access to all living
and hygiene facilities appropriate to human dignity.
53.
The Government concludes that the charges against Mr. Suleiman are not related to
his exercise of the rights, but to his commission of criminal offences. Mr. Suleiman is being
held pursuant to judicial decisions pending cases before the courts. The charges attributed to
Mr. Suleiman are consistent with the obligations of Egypt under article 20 (2) of the Covenant,
which stipulates that the law shall prohibit any advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement
to discrimination, hostility or violence.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
54.
The source, in additional comments submitted on 20 March 2026, draws the attention
to certain discrepancies between some dates in its submission and the Government’s response.
It also observes that, to date, the authorities have denied Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer access to the
case files in the proceedings against him. As a result, the source is not in a position to confirm
which of the dates subject to discrepancy are correct.
55.
The source also clarifies that Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer did not attend his client’s first
appearances before the Public Prosecutor in relation to any of the three charges against him.
With respect to the third charge, another lawyer assisted Mr. Suleiman during his first
appearance before the Public Prosecutor. Further, the observations that Mr. Suleiman’s
lawyer made and the exchanges he had with his client took place at a detention renewal
hearing on 24 October 2023. Nevertheless, the source contends that these inaccuracies do not
undermine the substance of its concerns about the arbitrariness of Mr. Suleiman’s detention.
56.
The Government fails to substantiate the nature of the “investigative findings” that
warranted the initiation of the three criminal proceedings against Mr. Suleiman or the
excessively lengthy pretrial detention. With respect to case No. 13043 of 2023, the
Government failed to acknowledge and provide a detailed account of Mr. Suleiman’s initial
arrest on 13 June 2023 and his subsequent detention until his reappearance on 7 August 2023,
therefore confirming the allegation that the National Security Agency did not show an arrest
warrant. The Government’s response also amounts to a denial that Mr. Suleiman was
detained between 13 June and 6 August 2023. Similarly, while confirming that
Mr. Suleiman’s release on conditional bail was ordered on 10 August 2023, the Government
ignores the allegation that the order was not implemented, and contends that Mr. Suleiman
was “arrested again” 17 days later in a second case, thereby denying that he had remained in
detention throughout that period. The Government’s response also confirms that no
investigation was conducted into the failure to enforce the order for his release on bail.
57.
With respect to case No. 3117 of 2023, the Government ignores the allegation that the
authorities failed to implement a second bail order of Banha Criminal Court of 21 January
2024 – even though Mr. Suleiman had paid the required bail bond on 23 January 2024 – and
that he was instead detained without legal basis in an undisclosed location until 26 February
2024, when he was rotated into a third case. The Government’s response also confirms that
no investigation was conducted into the failure to implement the second bail order.
58.
With respect to case No. 28428 of 2025, the Government fails to provide details –
including dates for the issuance of the judicial warrant for Mr. Suleiman’s “arrest” or of his
remand in pretrial detention – to substantiate its account of the “arrest” and investigation in
the third criminal case. This confirms that Mr. Suleiman was rotated on charges similar to
those in the previous cases, and that the periods of pretrial detention pertaining to the cases
followed each other without any clear ending or beginning. The Government has employed
tadweer (case recycling) against Mr. Suleiman to unlawfully circumvent the conditional bail
orders by bringing consecutive similar charges and ordering new periods of pretrial detention.
59.
With respect to the three allegations of enforced disappearance, the Government limits
its response to general observations on the purported oversight of the Supreme State Security
Prosecution over all detention facilities, instead of sharing the outcome of an independent,
impartial and thorough investigation into these grave allegations. The Government also fails
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
9
to address the allegation that a police officer of Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station refused to
disclose to Mr. Suleiman’s family that he was being held at the police station on 4 February
2024, or the allegations that the Public Prosecutor failed to respond to four petitions filed by
Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer enquiring as to Mr. Suleiman’s whereabouts. The failure to address
these serious allegations confirms that no investigation was ever conducted in response to
these petitions.
60.
On the Government’s own admission, in all cases, the Supreme State Security
Prosecution decided matters of pretrial detention, at least at the initial stages. Contrary to
what the Government asserts, the Supreme State Security Prosecution cannot be considered
an independent judicial power for the purpose of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
61.
Mr. Suleiman has spent more than two years and nine months in detention without
trial, over the maximum duration of pretrial detention. Although his referral to trial on
11 November 2025 has had the effect of interrupting the period of pretrial detention, he had
been detained without trial for more than two years in that case alone.
62.
With respect to allegations concerning conditions of detention and access to
healthcare, the Government fails to address the allegation that, on 4 March 2024,
Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer submitted to the Supreme State Security Prosecution a formal request
to undergo a medical examination for his back pain, which was rejected without any reason.
2.
Discussion
63.
In determining whether Mr. Suleiman’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.11
(a)
Category I
64.
The source submits that, in view of the authorities’ violation of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Constitution and court-sanctioned conditional bail orders, there is no legal
basis justifying Mr. Suleiman’s detention, making his detention arbitrary under category I.
Moreover, under article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an investigating judge may
only order detention pending trial when doing so is deemed necessary, and pretrial detention
cannot exceed two years, including for charges subject to life imprisonment, such as the crime
of joining and financing a terrorist group.12 Furthermore, under article 142 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Supreme State Security Prosecution has the authority to order
pretrial detention for an initial period of 15 days, and is authorized to conduct detention
review hearings and extend pretrial detention in 15-day increments up to 150 days. Thereafter,
the Appellate Misdemeanour Court in Cairo can extend pretrial detention by 45-day intervals
until the maximum two-year detention time limit is reached.13
65.
The Government does not deny that Mr. Suleiman’s release was ordered on
conditional bail on 10 August 2023. It has not addressed the submission made by the source
that the order for release on bail was not implemented. With respect to case No. 3117 of 2023,
as the source notes, the Government has not addressed its submission that the authorities
again failed to implement a second bail order of the Banha Criminal Court of 21 January
2024. Although Mr. Suleiman paid the required bail security on 23 January 2024, he was
detained at an undisclosed location until 26 February 2024. The Government has not
explained why Mr. Suleiman’s bail order was not implemented, and that he was instead
detained from 21 January to 26 February 2024, when he was rotated into a third case.
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 Anti-Terrorism Act, art. 13.
13 Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 202 and 206 bis.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
10
GE.26-05888
66.
The Working Group is thus inclined to accept the submission of the source that
detention of Mr. Suleiman following bail orders was without any legal basis and renders his
deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category I.
67.
As the Working Group has consistently stated, 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.14 This is typically
done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).15 Persons who are
detained have the right to be promptly informed of the charges against them. In particular,
the authorities must provide enough factual specifics to indicate the substance of the
complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of the alleged victim.16 The right to be
presented with an arrest warrant, at least in arrests not made in flagrante delicto, is inherent
to the right to liberty and security of person and to the prohibition of arbitrary detention under
articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2, 4 and 10 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
68.
The source argues that, under article 54 of the Constitution, the National Security
Agency was required to serve Mr. Suleiman with a judicial warrant to execute his arrest,
given that the arrest was not made in flagrante delicto.
69.
The information supplied by the source and the response by the Government
seemingly contradict each other as regards the question of the arrest warrant, in particular
whether or not warrants were produced or shown to Mr. Suleiman at the time of each arrest
or whether he was otherwise notified of the reasons for his arrest. According to the source,
the authorities failed to serve Mr. Suleiman with a formal judicial warrant detailing the basis
of his arrest and the nature of the charges against him.
70.
In its response, the Government submits that Mr. Suleiman was in each case arrested
pursuant to an arrest warrant duly issued by the Public Prosecutor. The first and second arrest
warrants were dated 5 and 24 August 2023, respectively. As for the third arrest warrant, no
date was given by the Government.
71.
The Working Group observes that there seems to be no contestation that the
authorities prepared or issued the arrest warrants on the dates indicated by the Government.
Where the difference arises is whether any of those warrants were produced or shown to
Mr. Suleiman at the time of his arrest or whether he was otherwise notified of the reasons for
his arrest. The Government in its response states merely that arrest warrants were issued. It
does not state whether the arresting officials presented the arrest warrant or informed
Mr. Suleiman of the reason for his arrest at the time of each of the arrests.
72.
The Working Group notes that the Government has not disputed the date of arrest or
the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. Suleiman. Notwithstanding the statement by the
Government that Mr. Suleiman was interrogated in the presence of his lawyer in relation to
the third arrest, but bearing in mind the distinction between issuing an arrest warrant and
showing such a warrant to a suspect before the arrest, on the facts as presented, the Working
Group is inclined to accept the position given by the source that no arrest warrant was shown
to Mr. Suleiman at the time of his arrest. Consequently, the Working Group considers that
the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Suleiman is arbitrary under category I.
73.
Moreover, the source argues that Mr. Suleiman was subjected to the practice of
recycling of cases, or tadweer, with the aim of unlawfully circumventing the conditional bail
orders by bringing consecutive similar charges and ordering new periods of pretrial detention
in relation to the same conduct for which he had already been granted conditional bail in prior
cases. In its response regarding allegations of the recycling of cases, the Government merely
asserts that the Public Prosecutor’s Office exercises its powers independently.
14 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23; opinion No. 88/2017, para. 27;
opinion No. 3/2018, para. 43; and opinion No. 30/2018, para. 39.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25; opinion No. 30/2017, paras. 58
and 59; opinion No. 25/2018, para. 36; and opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
11
74.
The Working Group notes that the practice of recycling cases is incompatible with an
accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time and the presumption of liberty pending
trial.17 The Working Group finds that Mr. Suleiman’s pretrial detention was perpetuated by
case rotation, whereby he was presented with new but similar charges.
75.
The Working Group recalls that article 9 (3) of the Covenant requires that anyone
detained on a criminal charge be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized
by law to exercise judicial power. The Working Group has previously found, in the context
of proceedings in Egypt, that the Supreme State Security Prosecution does not qualify as an
independent judicial authority within the meaning of this provision.18 The Government’s
argument that the Public Prosecutor constitutes a part of the judiciary does not resolve this
question, since the functional independence of the reviewing authority – including its
separation from the prosecutorial function – is what article 9 (3) demands. The Supreme State
Security Prosecution issued the arrest warrant, conducted the interrogation, filed the charges
and authorized the renewals of the pretrial detention. It cannot simultaneously be considered
independent for the purpose of the judicial review of the detention that it has ordered.
76.
The source has submitted that Mr. Suleiman was subjected to three periods of enforced
disappearance. With respect to the first period, Mr. Suleiman’s family submitted a written
request on 7 August 2023 to the Public Prosecutor in Al-Qalyubiyah to ascertain his place of
detention. The Public Prosecutor reportedly did not respond to the request. With respect to
the second period, Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer and a family member went to Al-Qalyubiyah
Police Station on 12 August 2023 to enquire about his whereabouts. The police officers
informed them that Mr. Suleiman was not in their custody and was being held by the National
Security Agency. His exact location, however, was not disclosed. In respect of the third
period, Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer filed petition No. 669834 of 2024 with the Public Prosecutor
of Al-Qalyubiyah on 3 February 2024 to request disclosure of his detention and to demand
an investigation into his enforced disappearances and the non-execution of the two bail orders.
The Public Prosecutor, however, refused to initiate an investigation; although he informed
the lawyer that the petition was being processed, he did not acknowledge the detention.
77.
The Working Group considers that the response of the Government with respect to
the three allegations of enforced disappearance is inadequate. The Government fails to
explain whether Mr. Suleiman was detained during the alleged periods at the National
Security Agency headquarters at the Al-Qalyubiyah Police Station and to indicate whether
this is an official and legal place of detention. The Government does not provide information
as to whether an independent, impartial and thorough investigation has been conducted into
the enforced disappearance allegations.
78.
The Working Group recalls that an enforced disappearance occurs when the arrest,
detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by
persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the
State is followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of
the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the
protection of the law.19 Enforced disappearance violates numerous substantive and procedural
provisions of the Covenant, including articles 9 and 14, and constitutes a particularly
aggravated form of arbitrary detention.20
79.
In the present case, the Working Group considers, on the basis of the information
before it, that the Government has failed to rebut the source’s prima facie credible allegations
that Mr. Suleiman was subjected to three periods of enforced disappearance and
incommunicado detention.
17 Opinion No. 60/2022, paras. 73 and 74.
18 Opinion No. 45/2021, para. 80.
19 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2.
20 See opinions No. 77/2020, No. 38/2021 and No. 25/2022.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
12
GE.26-05888
80.
The Working Group accordingly concludes that the Government failed to meet its
obligations under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and, moreover, that Mr. Suleiman was
subjected to enforced disappearance in breach of article 3 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
81.
Further, the Working Group has repeatedly asserted that holding persons at secret,
undisclosed 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 (4) of
the Covenant. Deprivation of liberty that entails a wilful refusal to disclose the fate or
whereabouts of the persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention lacks any valid legal
basis under any circumstance. The Government’s failure to provide notification of the arrest
and location of Mr. Suleiman’s detention to his family and lawyer also violated principle
16 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
82.
The Working Group recalls that principle 15 of the Body of Principles provides that
communication of detained or imprisoned persons with the outside world, and in particular
their family or counsel, is not to be denied for more than a matter of days. Article 17 of the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
provides that individuals deprived of their liberty must be held in a place of detention that is
officially recognized, and States must ensure that no one is held in secret detention.
83.
The Working Group thus finds that Mr. Suleiman was kept at a location unknown to
his family and lawyers. This entailed a wilful refusal to disclose his fate or whereabouts or
to acknowledge his detention. This was inherently arbitrary, as it placed the detainee outside
the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
84.
The Working Group notes that giving prompt and regular access to family members,
as well as to independent medical personnel and lawyers, is an essential and necessary
protection against arbitrary detention, which is a violation of article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as a safeguard for the prevention of torture.21 Moreover,
prohibiting contact with the outside world may violate rule 58 of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)22 and principles
15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
85.
The Government’s failure to provide notification of the arrest and location of
detention of Mr. Suleiman to his family also violated principle 16 (1) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
His rights to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant were violated. Consequently, the Working Group
finds that the Government’s failure to establish a legal basis for Mr. Suleiman’s detention
renders his detention arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
86.
According to the source, the authorities ostensibly used pretrial detention as a form of
retribution for Mr. Suleiman’s political activism and participation in peaceful protests, which
were a legitimate exercise of the rights protected under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant
and articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. Suleiman is a
known political activist. He was previously arrested and detained on at least three occasions,
namely in 2016, for 3 months following his participation in protests denouncing the transfer
by Egypt of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia, in 2017 for 17 months following
his participation in a peaceful demonstration marking the anniversary of the 2011 Egyptian
revolution, and in 2021 for 1 month, following a request from the National Security Agency
for him to report to its headquarters in Shubra al-Khaima.
21 Opinion No. 19/2022, para. 52.
22 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74 and 75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
13
87.
The Government maintains that Mr. Suleiman’s arrests came in the wake of
investigations that concluded that he had committed crimes, including holding takfirist ideas
and embracing a jihadist ideology declaring police and army personnel to be infidels and
targeting members of the Christian community, joining a terrorist group with knowledge of
its purposes, and financing terrorism. In its reply, the Government does not explain the
seeming coincidence of his arrests and his activism, nor does it dispel the perception that his
arrests are related to the exercise of his freedoms of expression and assembly.
88.
The freedoms of opinion and expression and of peaceful assembly are fundamental
human rights enshrined in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. The Government must respect, protect and fulfil the
right to hold and express opinions, including those that are not in accordance with its official
policy, and to think and manifest personal convictions at odds with its official ideology, under
the peremptory norms (jus cogens) of customary international law.23
89.
The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms
of opinion and expression, stated that restrictions on the freedom of expression must not be
overly broad, must conform to the principle of proportionality, must be appropriate to achieve
their protective function, must be the least intrusive instrument among those which might
achieve their protective function, and must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.
The value placed by the Covenant on uninhibited expression is particularly high in the
circumstances of public debate in a democratic society concerning figures in the public and
political domain. The protection of free expression is broad enough to include the right of
individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Governments without fear of
interference or punishment. Without such protection, members of political opposition and
human rights activists will not be able to criticize, investigate or expose corrupt and illegal
practices by government officials.24
90.
As the Government has not dispelled the source’ assertions, the Working Group finds
that Mr. Suleiman was targeted for arrest and detention because of his political activities. The
deprivation of his liberty is thus arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
91.
Given the Working Group’s finding that Mr. Suleiman’s detention is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. The trial
having begun, however, the Working Group will now proceed to consider the submissions
concerning the denial of his fair trial rights.
92.
The source argues that the authorities failed to promptly provide accurate information
to Mr. Suleiman’s legal counsel regarding his detention. The authorities also failed to notify
Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer of his place of detention. The source points out that certain conditions
of detention, such as denial of access to counsel and family, may result in procedural
violations of the Covenant.25 The source also contends that, through the practice of recycling
cases and by not executing the bail that had been granted, the authorities violated
Mr. Suleiman’s right to be free from repeated and prolonged arbitrary detention.
93.
In its additional comments, the source clarifies that Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer did not
attend his client’s first appearances before the Public Prosecutor in relation to any of the three
charges against him. With respect to the third charge, the source clarifies that another lawyer
assisted Mr. Suleiman during his first appearance before the Public Prosecutor. Further, the
observations that Mr. Suleiman’s lawyer made and the exchanges that he had with his client
took place at a detention renewal hearing on 24 October 2023. Nevertheless, the source
contends that these inaccuracies do not undermine the substance of its concerns on the
arbitrariness of Mr. Suleiman’s detention.
23 Opinions No. 94/2017, para. 59; No. 88/2017, para. 32; No. 83/2017, para. 70; and No. 76/2017,
para. 62.
24 Opinion No. 22/2013, para. 11.
25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 57.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
14
GE.26-05888
94.
In its reply, the Government does not address the issue of legal representation during
the periods of Mr. Suleiman’s enforced disappearance. It states that he was interrogated in
the presence of his lawyer at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the third charge,
which is still pending before the court. The Working Group notes that the Government has
failed to show that Mr. Suleiman had access to legal representation at least in the first hearings
in relation to the first and second charges brought against him.
95.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone
charged with a criminal offence has the right to a public trial at which they have all the
guarantees necessary for their defence. Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant guarantees the right
to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate with
counsel. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted “adequate time” as requiring the
accused to be granted prompt access to counsel. While what is considered “prompt” depends
on the circumstances of the case, principle 15 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment stipulates that communication
with counsel should not be denied for more than a matter of days. Accused persons must also
be able to meet with their counsel in private conditions and the confidentiality of their
communication must be fully respected. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state
that access to a lawyer must be provided within 48 hours from the time of arrest or detention.
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 guarantees legal assistance at any time during detention, including immediately after
the moment of arrest,26 while guideline 8 sets out that access to legal counsel must be
provided, at the latest, prior to any questioning by an authority.
96.
By failing to grant Mr. Suleiman access to a lawyer during the periods of enforced
disappearance, the authorities violated article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, principles 15 and 17 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, paragraph 7 of
the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and principle 9 and guideline 8 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. This renders the
detention arbitrary under category III.
97.
Lastly, the Working Group notes that, according to the source, Mr. Suleiman
continues to be detained, despite having been granted bail. Mr. Suleiman has spent more than
two years and nine months in detention without trial, which exceeds the maximum duration
of pretrial detention. Further, through the practice of recycling cases, the source argues that
the authorities violated the right of Mr. Suleiman to be free from prolonged arbitrary
detention. The Government, in its reply, does not refute those allegations, only
acknowledging that Mr. Suleiman is currently held in pretrial detention awaiting trial in the
pending cases. In direct contrast, the source identifies two other cases in relation to
Mr. Suleiman that the Government does not address and which, given the striking similarity
of the charges, all related to the crime of joining a terrorist group, give weight to the argument
that Mr. Suleiman was rotated through different cases to prolong his detention.
98.
The Working Group considers that the Government has not adequately rebutted the
source’s claims in relation to Mr. Suleiman having been subjected to the practice of recycling.
Noting all of the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of Mr. Suleiman’s
right to a fair trial were of such gravity as to render his detention arbitrary, falling under
category III.
26 The right to legal assistance applies from the moment of deprivation of liberty and across all settings
of detention (A/HRC/45/16, para. 51).
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
GE.26-05888
15
(d)
Concluding remarks
99.
The Working Group notes that this opinion is one of several brought before the
Working Group in recent years concerning arbitrary detention in Egypt. 27 The Working
Group remains concerned that this might indicate a widespread or systematic practice of
arbitrary detention in Egypt, including through the unlawful practice of rotation, whereby
release is ordered but never effected and new charges are brought against the person
concerned.28 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
100.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Ahmad Assayed Suleiman, also known as Gika, being in
contravention of articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2 (1), 2 (3), 9, 14, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II and III.
101.
The Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Suleiman 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.
102.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Suleiman immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
103.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Suleiman and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
104.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
105.
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. Suleiman has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Suleiman;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Suleiman’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Egypt with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
106.
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.
27 See opinions No. 23/2022, No. 34/2022, No. 53/2022, No. 60/2022, No. 12/2023, No. 20/2023,
No. 31/2023, No. 36/2023, No. 40/2023, No. 70/2023, No. 8/2024, No. 17/2024, No. 20/2024,
No. 23/2025, No. 25/2025, No. 29/2025, No. 32/2025 and No. 56/2025.
28 See opinions No. 23/2025, No. 29/2025 and No. 32/2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/17
16
GE.26-05888
107.
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.
108.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.29
[Adopted on 26 March 2026]
29 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.