A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

GE.26-06153 (E) 120526 130526

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. 4/2026 concerning Moussa Tiangari Aissama Tata (Niger)*

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 27 November 2025 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of the Niger a communication concerning Moussa Tiangari

Aissama Tata. The Government did not reply to the communication within the established

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

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her

sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,

26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to

the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to

give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

(d)

When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy

(category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on

the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,

religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability

or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings

(category V).

* Miriam Estrada-Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

General Assembly

Distr.: General

5 May 2026

English

Original: French

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

2

GE.26-06153

1.

Submissions

(a)

Communication from the source

(i)

Facts reported

4.

Moussa Tiangari Aissama Tata (also known as Moussa Tchangari), born in 1969, is a

human rights activist of the Niger and co-founder and Secretary General of Alternative

Espaces Citoyens. He is said to be one of the most prominent figures in civil society of the

Niger. He usually resides in Niamey.

5.

The source reports that, since the military coup of 26 July 2023, acts of political

repression that violate the international human rights commitments of the Niger have

continued to increase, particularly arbitrary arrests aimed at stifling freedom of expression.

The practice of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention is still widespread, and

recurring allegations regarding the methods used by the intelligence services of the Niger

have raised concerns within the Committee on Enforced Disappearances.

6.

According to the source, Mr. Tiangari has been arrested and detained on several

occasions in the past. In 2015, he was arrested and held in police custody for 10 days by the

Central Service for Combating Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime, following the

publication of a report by Alternatives Espaces Citoyens on the impact of the state of

emergency measures on human rights and the effects of the forced displacement of civilian

populations living on the islands of Lake Chad. In 2018, Mr. Tiangari was arrested and

detained as part of a crackdown on a peaceful protest against the 2018 Finance Act, a law

that was heavily criticized by some members of civil society in the Niger. In 2020,

Mr. Tiangari was arrested and detained again as part of a crackdown on an anti-corruption

protest denouncing the embezzlement of funds in the procurement of military equipment.

7.

According to the source, on 28 November 2024, Mr. Tiangari participated as a

panellist in an international conference organized in Côte d’Ivoire by the International

Committee of the Red Cross to mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Geneva

Conventions.

8.

Upon his return to the Niger on 3 December 2024, Mr. Tiangari was reportedly

arrested at around 6.10 p.m. at his home by four unidentified armed men in plain clothes,

without a warrant or any other documentation, and taken, with his face covered, to a secret

location. The source reports that the modus operandi suggests that the people who made the

arrest were intelligence officers from the General Directorate for Documentation and

External Security. It adds that, in the 48 hours following Mr. Tiangari’s arrest, his family and

lawyers heard nothing from him and were given no information about his whereabouts or his

place of detention.

9.

On 4 December 2024, a journalist described by the source as having close ties to the

military in power reportedly published an article that was widely shared on social media

stating that Mr. Tiangari’s arrest followed his participation in a conference organized by the

International Committee of the Red Cross, at which he allegedly made remarks hostile to the

army.

10.

On 5 December 2024, Mr. Tiangari was reportedly handed over to the Central Service

for Combating Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime. It was then that he was

allegedly informed for the first time of the reasons for his arrest, namely financing of

terrorism, glorification of terrorism, criminal conspiracy in connection with terrorism and

offence against national security.

11.

On 3 January 2025, after having been held in custody for one month at the facility of

the Central Service for Combating Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime, without

being allowed any visitors except his lawyers, Mr. Tiangari was reportedly brought before

the senior investigating judge, who serves as a judge in the specialized judicial division to

combat terrorism and transnational organized crime at the Niamey Tribunal de

Grande Instance Hors Classe (court of major jurisdiction). The investigating judge

reportedly dropped the charge of financing terrorism before reclassifying the acts

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

GE.26-06153

3

and retaining the following five charges, based on articles 399.1.17 bis, 399.1.19 (new),

62 to 65 and 78 to 84 of the Criminal Code of the Niger:

(a)

Advocating terrorism;

(b)

Conspiracy to commit a terrorist offence;

(c)

Offence against national security;

(d)

Undermining of national defence; and

(e)

Conspiracy against the authority of the State in collusion with enemy Powers.

12.

On the same day, the investigating judge ordered Mr. Tiangari to be remanded in

custody at the Filingué civilian prison in Tillabéri, located some 180 km from Niamey.

13.

On 24 January 2025, Mr. Tiangari’s lawyers filed a petition, pursuant to article 162

of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Niger, seeking to have the proceedings against their

client dismissed. The source indicates that this petition was declared inadmissible on

24 March 2025 by the senior investigating judge, who had taken up the case on his own

initiative and ruled on the petition ultra vires instead of referring it to the indictment division

of the appellate court.

14.

On 24 April 2025, Mr. Tiangari filed a petition for the senior investigating judge to

be recused, accusing the judge of delaying the investigation of the case since the initial court

appearance on 3 January 2025. The source reports that this petition was denied on 14 May

2025, on the grounds that “the defendant [was] being prosecuted for criminal offences for

which pretrial detention [could] last up to 4 years without the possibility of extension […]”.

15.

According to the source, Mr. Tiangari’s relatives must obtain a visiting permit from

the judge to visit him at Filingué prison; given the distance, family visits are limited to twice

a week. The source also notes that the town of Filingué is located in one of the areas of the

Niger where there is a high level of insecurity owing to the presence of non-State armed

groups and that anyone visiting Mr. Tiangari is therefore at risk of being attacked.

16.

The source notes that, to date, Mr. Tiangari has still not been informed of the identity

of the terrorist group with which he is accused of having links. After a year in custody and

under investigation, no factual evidence has been produced against him to support the

charges. In the absence of evidence, Mr. Tiangari was reportedly questioned by the

investigating judge and investigators on the basis of forensic analysis of his phone, which

revealed meetings with political figures in connection with his work as a human rights

defender, and the public statements he made at international summits abroad.

(ii)

Legal analysis

17.

The source argues that Mr. Tiangari’s detention is arbitrary and falls within

categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group’s methods of work.

a.

Category I

18.

The source argues that Mr. Tiangari’s detention has no legal basis.

19.

It notes that Mr. Tiangari was arrested on the evening of 3 December 2024 at his home

by unidentified armed men, without a warrant. He was not informed of the reasons for his

detention at the time of his arrest. It was not until around 2 p.m. on 5 December 2024, while

he was being transferred to the Central Service for Combating Terrorism and Transnational

Organized Crime, that he was said to have been informed of the reason for his arrest. The

source argues that these procedural violations render the measure involving deprivation of

liberty unlawful from the outset and are contrary to article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and

article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

20.

With regard to the incommunicado detention of Mr. Tiangari from 3 to 5 December

2024, the source argues that detaining an individual in such a way that he has no access to

the outside world, in particular to his family and his lawyer, constitutes a violation of his

right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the

Covenant. In this case, from 3 to 5 December 2024, Mr. Tiangari was held at a secret location.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

4

GE.26-06153

During this two-day period, his family and lawyers were denied any information regarding

his situation and place of detention; consequently, Mr. Tiangari was denied assistance by

legal counsel during the first few days of his detention.

21.

The source further argues that the charges against Mr. Tiangari are vague, which is

contrary to articles 9 (1) and 15 of the Covenant and article 11 (2) of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and to the principle of clarity in criminal law that flows from

them.2 It adds that governments cannot simply make vague references to terrorism charges

to justify detaining someone, particularly human rights defenders, without explicitly

identifying the terrorist group to which the detained person belonged and the specific terrorist

activities in which the person is alleged to have participated.

22.

The source states that the wording of the provisions on which the charges against

Mr. Tiangari are based does not allow them to be considered lex certa, as it does not make it

possible to determine in advance which behaviours and statements are lawful and which are

prohibited. Furthermore, these provisions are said to be used to target human rights defenders

who peacefully express critical views, with the aim of stifling debate on matters of public

interest relating the state of civil and political rights in the Niger, thereby creating a chilling

effect on freedom of expression. Consequently, they should be repealed so that the Niger can

comply with its international obligations.

b.

Category II

23.

The source considers that the detention of Mr. Tiangari is arbitrary and falls under

category II, since it results from the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by

articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and article 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.

24.

The source recalls that the right to freedom of expression protects the right to take up

a position and express opinions, including those that are critical of government policy or are

not in keeping with it.3 Furthermore, it notes that this right includes political discourse,

commentary on public affairs and discussion of human rights.4

25.

In this case, the source states that Mr. Tiangari is a nationally recognized human rights

defender. He was purportedly arrested on 3 December 2024 for attending a conference

organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross and making remarks there that

were deemed hostile to the army. However, the source argues that these remarks related

exclusively to the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law in

situations of non-international armed conflict, such as those currently taking place in the

Sahel region. According to the source, the remarks were therefore protected by the right to

freedom of expression. The circumstances and the offences with which Mr. Tiangari is

charged would thus demonstrate that these offences clearly constitute reprisals taken in

response to the expression of a peaceful political opinion.

26.

The source adds that Mr. Tiangari’s arrest and detention are intended to prevent him

from continuing to promote human rights and international humanitarian law by peacefully

gathering with other human rights defenders at the local and international levels. For the past

30 years, Mr. Tiangari has been active in several organizations, having begun his activist

career with the Union of Nigerien Students, which he led from 1989 to 1990, at the height of

the struggle for democracy in the Niger, and subsequently with the Association nigérienne

de défense des droits de l’homme, of which he was a founding member in 1991. The source

states that he also served as Secretary General of the Association nigérienne des éditeurs de

la presse indépendante, President of the Maison de la Presse and Secretary General of

Alternatives Espaces Citoyens since 2001, one of the most active civil society organizations

in the Niger. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Frantz Fanon Foundation

in Paris, the Montreal-based Alternatives International network and the Centre for

Democracy and Development in Abuja.

2 Opinion No. 10/2018, para. 50.

3 Opinions No. 8/2019, para. 55; and No. 79/2017, para. 55.

4 Opinion No. 83/2019, para. 59; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011),

para. 11.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

GE.26-06153

5

27.

Consequently, the source considers that Mr. Tiangari’s detention also results from the

peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of assembly and constitutes a violation of article 22

of the Covenant and article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

28.

Furthermore, the source argues that, under article 25 of the Covenant, every citizen

has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs by exercising influence through

public debate.5 In this case, Mr. Tiangari published numerous articles critical of the change

in government that took place on 26 July 2023 and the conduct of public affairs in the Niger.

On 12 November 2024, he reportedly criticized on social media the decision by the Minister

of the Interior to revoke the licences of two humanitarian non-governmental organizations.

He is also reported to have criticized the creation of a register of individuals and groups

linked to terrorism, a measure that infringed upon the human rights of citizens of the Niger.

c.

Category III

29.

The source submits that the blatant disregard for international fair trial standards is of

such gravity that Mr. Tiangari’s deprivation of liberty is also arbitrary under category III.

30.

It refers to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, which states that anyone arrested or detained

on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge, which should not exceed

48 hours.

31.

In this case, Mr. Tiangari was not brought before a judge until a month after his arrest.

The source argues that, in any event, the incommunicado detention to which Mr. Tiangari

was subjected had left him without the protection of the law, depriving him of access to a

judge within the prescribed time limit. However, article 605.5 (new) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure establishes an exceptional period of police custody of 15 days, renewable once,

for offences relating to terrorism. According to the source, there is no doubt that, in this case,

this delay is not justified by Mr. Tiangari’s individual circumstances and appears to have

been used to deny him the right to a fair trial without justification.

32.

In the alternative, the source argues that the maximum exceptional time limit of one

month provided for in article 605.5 (new) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not appear

to be either reasonable or necessary to comply with article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

33.

Lastly, the source argues that Mr. Tiangari’s incommunicado detention from 3 to

5 December 2024 constitutes a violation of the right, guaranteed by article 14 (3) (b) of the

Covenant, to be assisted by counsel of his own choosing at any time during detention,

including immediately after arrest – access to which he must be granted without delay.

d.

Category V

34.

The source considers that, in light of the facts, it is clear that Mr. Tiangari has been

the victim of political persecution for several years because of his commitment to human

rights in the Niger. He was thus deprived of his liberty on discriminatory grounds because of

his political views and his status as a human rights defender.

35.

Noting that Mr. Tiangari’s political views and beliefs are at the heart of this case, the

source recalls that, in this instance, he has been arrested and detained three times previously

for his activities. In 2015, he was arrested and held in police custody for 10 days for similar

offences, following the publication of a report by Alternatives Espaces Citoyens on the

impact of the state of emergency measures on human rights and the effects of the forced

displacement of civilian populations living on the islands of Lake Chad. In 2018,

Mr. Tiangari was arrested and detained as part of the crackdown on a peaceful demonstration

against the 2018 Finance Act. In 2020, he was arrested and detained again as part of a

crackdown on an anti-corruption protest denouncing the embezzlement of funds in the

procurement of military equipment.

5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

6

GE.26-06153

(b)

Response from the Government

36.

On 2 December 2025, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning

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

2 February 2026 and to ensure his physical and mental integrity.

37.

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

and that the Government did not request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as

provided for in the Working Group’s methods of work.6

2.

Discussion

38.

In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided

to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.

39.

In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tiangari 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

human rights law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood

to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.7 In the present case, the

Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the

source.

(a)

Category I

40.

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

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

41.

The source claims that Mr. Tiangari was arrested on the evening of 3 December 2024,

by unidentified armed men, without a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for

his arrest. It was not until 5 December 2024 that he was allegedly informed of the reasons for

his arrest. This allegation has not been refuted, as the Government has not responded to the

communication.

42.

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

have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The

authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.8 In cases

that do not involve arrests that are made in flagrante delicto, this is usually done by means of

an arrest warrant or an arrest order (or an equivalent document).9

43.

In the present case, the Working Group considers that the failure to produce an arrest

warrant and to inform Mr. Tiangari of the reasons for his arrest constitutes a violation of

articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) of the Covenant

and principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form

of Detention or Imprisonment.

44.

The Working Group notes that, in accordance with article 9 (2) of the Covenant, the

reasons for the arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only

the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough facts to indicate the substance of the

complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.10 This provision of

the Covenant also requires that anyone who is arrested must be promptly informed of any

charges against him or her.

45.

According to the source, Mr. Tiangari has still not been informed of the identity of the

terrorist group with which he is accused of having links. It argues that the authorities cannot

simply make vague references to terrorism charges to justify detaining someone, particularly

6 The Government replied to the Working Group’s communication on 31 March 2026, after the

adoption of the present opinion.

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

8 Opinions No. 71/2024, para. 106; and No. 5/2025, para. 85.

9 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; No. 30/2018, para. 39; and No. 61/2024,

para. 48.

10 Opinion No. 63/2025, para. 53.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

GE.26-06153

7

human rights defenders, without explicitly identifying the terrorist group to which the

detained person belonged and the specific terrorist activities in which the person is alleged to

have participated. The Working Group concurs and considers that Mr. Tiangari’s right to be

informed of the reasons for his arrest and the charges against him, as guaranteed by

article 9 (2) of the Covenant, has been violated.

46.

The source also asserts that, following Mr. Tiangari’s arrest on 3 December 2024, his

fate and whereabouts remained unknown until 5 December 2024. During that time,

Mr. Tiangari was held at a secret location. His family and lawyers had no news of him, and

no information regarding his fate or place of detention was provided to them. The

Government has not provided a response; the source’s claims on this matter are therefore

uncontested.

47.

The Working Group recalls that a deprivation of liberty entailing a wilful refusal to

disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention

has no valid legal basis under any circumstances and constitutes a situation of enforced

disappearance within the meaning of article 2 of the International Convention for the

Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The detention is inherently arbitrary,

as it places the person concerned outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 16

of the Covenant and article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.11 The Working

Group notes that enforced disappearance is prohibited by international law and constitutes a

particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention, regardless of the duration.12

48.

In the light of the information provided by the source, the Working Group considers

that Mr. Tiangari’s detention, from the time of his arrest on the evening of 3 December 2025

until his transfer to the Central Directorate for Combating Terrorism and Transnational

Organised Crime on 5 December 2025, constitutes an enforced disappearance, in violation

of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

article 1 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced

Disappearance. The Government’s failure to notify Mr. Tiangari’s family of his arrest and

the location of his detention violated principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles for the

Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

49.

A clear consequence of enforced disappearance is that it effectively deprives the

detained individual of the right to challenge the legality of the detention before a court, in

violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant. Judicial oversight of any detention is a

central safeguard for personal liberty and is critical in ensuring that detention has a legitimate

basis. The Working Group recalls that holding persons at secret locations and in

circumstances undisclosed to the person’s family violates their right to contest the legality of

their detention before a court or tribunal under article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant. 13

Furthermore, Mr. Tiangari’s right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated. He was also

placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of his right to be recognized as a person

before the law under article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16

of the Covenant.

50.

The source also notes that Mr. Tiangari was not brought before a judge within

48 hours of his arrest, but only a month later.

51.

The Working Group notes that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant,

anyone who is arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a

judge or other judicial authority.14 As the Human Rights Committee has noted, 48 hours is

ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee “promptly” before a

judge or other officer authorized by law following his or her arrest; any extension must

remain exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.15

11 Opinion No. 53/2025, para. 91.

12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17; and CED/C/11, para. 15.

13 Opinions No. 17/2024, para. 62; and No. 56/2025, para. 69.

14 Opinion No. 32/2025, para. 90.

15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32 and 33.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

8

GE.26-06153

52.

The Government did not provide any information to justify Mr. Tiangari’s appearance

before a judge one month after his arrest. The Working Group therefore concludes, on the

basis of the information provided by the source, that Mr. Tiangari’s right to be brought

promptly before a judge was violated, contrary to article 9 (3) of the Covenant and

principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of

Detention or Imprisonment.

53.

In view of the above, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Tiangari’s deprivation

of liberty has no legal basis, contrary to article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and article 9 of the Covenant, and is therefore arbitrary, falling within category I.

(b)

Category II

54.

The source alleges that Mr. Tiangari’s detention falls within category II, as it resulted

from his exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association and

participation in the conduct of public affairs. It argues that Mr. Tiangari was arrested for

taking part in a conference organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross and

making remarks deemed hostile to the army, despite the fact that those remarks focused

exclusively on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law.

According to the source, the offences with which Mr. Tiangari is charged clearly constitute

reprisals taken in response to the expression of a peaceful political opinion. The source adds

that, drawing on 30 years of involvement in national and international organizations,

Mr. Tiangari has also played a part in the conduct of public affairs in the Niger by exerting

his influence through public debate, particularly through his publications.

55.

The source’s allegations have not been refuted by the Government.

56.

The Working Group recalls that freedom of expression, protected under article 19 of

the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the cornerstone

of any free and democratic society and that it is of particular importance for human rights

activism.16 This freedom includes political discourse, commentary on public affairs and

discussion of human rights.17 It includes the right of individuals to openly criticize or evaluate

their Governments without fear of interference or punishment, even when statements are

deemed unacceptable or disrespectful by the authorities.18 Freedom of expression is closely

linked to other rights, in particular the right enshrined in article 25 (a) of the Covenant, under

which citizens have the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs through public debate

and dialogue or through their capacity to organize themselves.19

57.

The Working Group also recalls that the right of peaceful assembly and the right to

freedom of association are protected by articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant and article 20 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In accordance with general comment

No. 37 (2020) of the Human Rights Committee, the right to peaceful assembly and related

rights encompass not only the assembly itself, but also related activities such as the

mobilization of resources, planning, dissemination of information about the assembly and

communication between participants leading up to and during the assembly.20 The Human

Rights Committee has also stated that citizens take part in the conduct of public affairs by

exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through

their capacity to organize themselves and that this participation is supported by ensuring

freedom of expression, assembly and association.21

58.

The Working Group considers that Mr. Tiangari’s participation in the conference

organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross falls precisely within the scope

of such protected peaceful assemblies. In this case, Mr. Tiangari’s arrest immediately upon

his return to the Niger, as a direct result of his participation in this conference and the

statements he made on that occasion, constitutes a violation of his freedom of expression.

16 General comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 2 and 23.

17 Ibid., para. 11.

18 Opinion No. 67/2025, para. 81.

19 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 4; and general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8.

20 General comment No. 37 (2020), para. 33.

21 General comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

GE.26-06153

9

His arrest also violates his right to freely assemble with other human rights activists, a right

that is closely linked to his freedom of association, which he exercises as part of his

long-standing involvement in national and international organizations. The Working Group

notes that, in this case, the rights to peaceful assembly and association and freedom of

expression are closely interlinked, such that the suppression of one necessarily entailed a

violation of the others. The Working Group’s conclusion is further supported by the

uncontested allegation that Mr. Tiangari was questioned by the investigating judge and

investigators about the meetings he had held with political figures in the course of his work

as a human rights defender and the public statements he made at international summits

abroad.

59.

Restrictions on the freedom of expression, assembly and association are permissible

only when they meet the conditions listed in articles 19 (3), 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant.

Such limitations must not only have legal basis but must also be necessary and proportionate

to the achievement of legitimate objectives in a democratic society. 22 Furthermore,

restrictions must not be used to stifle the expression of political opposition, challenges to

authority, calls for democratic changes or the defence of human rights.23

60.

The Working Group has received no information to suggest that Mr. Tiangari’s arrest

and detention were necessary to protect a legitimate interest under these provisions. There is

no evidence to suggest that the remarks made by Mr. Tiangari incited violence or that they

could reasonably be regarded as a threat to national security, public order, public health or

morals, or the rights or reputations of others. Similarly, no legitimate justification has been

put forward for restricting Mr. Tiangari’s right to assemble peacefully with other human

rights defenders in connection with the International Committee of the Red Cross conference.

61.

The Working Group notes that, in the context of the ongoing universal periodic review

of the Niger, the summary of stakeholder submissions highlights serious threats to several

human rights in the country, including the rights to freedom of expression, association and

peaceful assembly, and notes that those who expressed views critical of the Government were

subjected to harassment, intimidation and arbitrary arrest. The summary also notes the

deteriorating situation facing opposition leaders, human rights defenders and civil society

leaders in the Niger.24

62.

In the light of the considerations noted above, the Working Group considers that

Mr. Tiangari was arrested and detained for exercising his right to freedom of opinion and

expression on matters of public interest, his right to take part in the conduct of public affairs

and his right to peaceful assembly and association, in violation of articles 19, 20 (1) and

21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the

Covenant.

63.

The Working Group therefore concludes that the violations Mr. Tiangari’s rights

render his detention arbitrary under category II.

(c)

Category III

64.

Given its findings that the detention of Mr. Tiangari is arbitrary under category II, the

Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.

65.

The Working Group has already concluded above, under category I, that Mr. Tiangari

was held incommunicado from 3 to 5 December 2024, notably without access to a lawyer.

According to the source, he has still not been informed of the identity of the terrorist group

with which he is accused of having ties, and, after more than a year in detention, no factual

evidence has been presented against him to support the charges. In the absence of evidence,

he was allegedly questioned about his interactions with political figures in the course of his

work and his public statements. These allegations are uncontested.

22 Opinion No. 67/2025, paras. 82 and 83.

23 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 23; general comment No. 37 (2020), paras. 36, 40 and 49; and

general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 25.

24 A/HRC/WG.6/52/NER/3, paras. 30 and 31.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

10

GE.26-06153

66.

The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to

legal assistance by counsel of their choosing, at any time during their detention, including

immediately after the moment of apprehension, and such access must be provided without

delay.25 The right to prompt legal assistance is essential to the right to a fair trial as it serves

to ensure that the principle of equality of arms is duly observed.

67.

In the present case, in the absence of a response from the Government refuting the

source’s allegations, the Working Group considers that Mr. Tiangari’s right to be informed

of the nature and cause of the charges against him, and his right to have adequate time and

facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with his counsel under

articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (a) and

(c) of the Covenant, have been violated.

68.

Lastly, the Working Group notes that Mr. Tiangari has been awaiting trial and held in

pretrial detention for over a year and that several interim applications by his lawyers have

clearly failed to move the proceedings forward. In addition, a petition filed by Mr. Tiangari

seeking the recusal of the lead investigating judge on the grounds that he had delayed the

investigation of the case was reportedly rejected on the grounds that pretrial detention for the

offences with which Mr. Tiangari is charged can last up to 4 years.

69.

The Working Group expresses concern about the slow pace of the proceedings in this

case and the fact that the law of the Niger permits pretrial detention for a period of 4 years.

It notes that, in accordance with article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, everyone has the right to

be tried without undue delay. This provision complements article 9 (3), which requires an

individual to be brought promptly before a judge and tried within a reasonable time frame.

What is considered a reasonable time depends on the individual circumstances of the case,

including its complexity and any relevant conduct on the part of the accused. In this case, the

Working Group has not received any information that would justify the current delay in the

proceedings or the prospect of a further three-year wait before a trial begins. There has

therefore been a violation of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.

70.

The Working Group concludes that the violations of Mr. Tiangari’s right to a fair trial

are of such gravity as to render his deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.

(d)

Category V

71.

The source argues that Mr. Tiangari’s detention is arbitrary and falls under

category V, as he has been the victim of political persecution for several years because of his

commitment to human rights in the Niger. In the absence of a response from the Government,

the source’s allegations remain uncontested.

72.

The Working Group recalls that detention is arbitrary under category V when it results

from 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. One of

the factors that suggests that there is a discriminatory aspect to a deprivation of liberty is

whether it is part of a pattern of persecution against the detained person that includes, for

example, previous arrests or acts of violence or threats.26

73.

In the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group established that

Mr. Tiangari’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his rights under international

law. When detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a

25 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51 and 52; A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9 and guideline 8; Basic Principles

on the Role of Lawyers, paras. 16–22; opinion No. 76/2021, para. 58; Body of Principles for the

Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 18 (3); and

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

rule 61 (1). See also opinion No. 55/2025, para. 96.

26 Opinion No. 22/2025, paras. 91 and 92; and A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

GE.26-06153

11

strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the

grounds of discrimination based on political or other views.27

74.

The Working Group notes that the persecution suffered by Mr. Tiangari and the

numerous instances of arrest and detention he has endured have given rise to several

communications sent to the Government by United Nations special procedures mandate

holders.28 As the Working Group considers that detaining individuals on the basis of their

activities as human rights defenders violates their right to equality before the law and equal

protection of the law under articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.29 It notes that human rights defenders constitute a

protected group, whose members are entitled to equal protection under the law pursuant to

article 26 of the Covenant and the 1998 Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.30

75.

For these reasons, the Working Group finds that Mr. Tiangari was deprived of his

liberty on discriminatory grounds, in particular because of his political opinions and his

human rights activities. His detention is therefore arbitrary under category V.

3.

Disposition

76.

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

The deprivation of liberty of Moussa Tiangari Aissama Tata, being in contravention

of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.

77.

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

to remedy the situation of Mr. Tiangari 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 Covenant.

78.

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

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

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

law.

79.

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

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of

Mr. Tiangari and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of

his rights.

80.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

4.

Follow-up procedure

81.

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

(b)

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

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of

Mr. Tiangari’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

27 Opinions No. 68/2025, para. 75; No. 67/2025, para. 106; No. 55/2025, paras. 115 and 116;

No. 58/2023, para. 73; No. 25/2024, paras. 125 and 126; and No. 3/2022, para. 73. See also

A/HRC/36/37, para. 46.

28 NER 1/2018, NER 1/2020 and NER 2/2025.

29 A/HRC/48/55, para. 48.

30 Ibid.; opinions No. 81/2020; and No. 45/2016.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/4

12

GE.26-06153

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of the Niger with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

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

82.

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.

83.

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.

84.

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 23 March 2026]

31 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.