Opinion; Subjects: MOROCCO, 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.26-05779 (E) 070526 080526
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. 8/2026, concerning Saida El Alami (Morocco)*
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 Morocco a communication concerning Saida El Alami. The
Government replied 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/2026/8
General Assembly
Distr.: General
30 April 2026
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
2
GE.26-05779
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
(i)
Facts reported
4.
Saida El Alami, born in 1974, is a Moroccan blogger and human rights activist.
5.
According to the source, Ms. El Alami regularly posts on social media to comment on
political and social developments in Morocco and to publicly denounce violations of
fundamental rights committed in the country. She is also said to participate actively in the
activities of non-governmental organizations working to protect human rights.
6.
The source reports that, on the afternoon of 1 July 2025, Ms. El Alami was abducted
on a public street by plainclothes police officers traveling in an unmarked vehicle. The
officers reportedly did not show her an arrest warrant or inform her of the reasons for her
arrest.
7.
Ms. El Alami’s disappearance was reportedly discovered by a family member who,
after unsuccessfully trying to reach her several times during the day, went to her home and
found signs indicating that she had left it, although not for an extended period.
8.
It was not until the day after Ms. El Alami’s arrest that two police officers reportedly
went to her family members’ home to inform them of her arrest.
9.
According to the source, Ms. El Alami was arrested shortly after she had appeared
live on Facebook while attending a protest denouncing the death of a prisoner caused by
prison conditions. In the video, Ms. El Alami called the authorities to account and denounced
violations of prisoners’ rights in Morocco.
10.
After spending 48 hours in police custody at the police station in Casablanca, Ms. El
Alami was referred to the public prosecutor’s office on 3 July 2025. Later that day, she was
brought before a judge.
11.
According to the source, the authorities refused Ms. El Alami’s request to contact a
lawyer, thereby preventing her from exercising her right to legal counsel during her
questioning. Ms. El Alami was reportedly charged, among other things, with contempt of
court under the first paragraph of article 263 of the Criminal Code,2 contempt of a public
authority, under article 265 of the Criminal Code,3 and spreading false allegations, under
article 442 of the Criminal Code.4 The allegations are reportedly linked to her social media
posts. According to the source, Ms. El Alami was not permitted to review the record of her
statement when she was being questioned and therefore refused to sign it, despite the pressure
exerted on her.
12.
Following a trial marked by numerous postponements, on 16 September 2025, the
Casablanca Court of First Instance sentenced Ms. El Alami to 3 years’ imprisonment and a
fine of DH 20,000 on the aforementioned charges.
13.
According to the source, the authorities indicated that if Ms. El Alami exercised her
right to appeal against the decision, it could lead to a harsher sentence, as had occurred with
a previous conviction. This deterred Ms. El Alami from filing an appeal.
2 Under this provision, “anyone who insults a judge, a public official, or a senior officer or officer of
the law, in the course of his or her duties or when on duty, with the intention of undermining his or
her honour, discretion or due respect for his or her authority, by word or deed, by threat, by the
sending or presenting of an object of any kind, or by written text or drawings not otherwise made
public, shall be liable to a prison term of between 1 month and 1 year and a fine of between 250 and
5,000 dirhams (DH). Where one or more judges or officers of the court are insulted during court
proceedings, the prison term shall be between 1 and 2 years.”
3 According to article 265, “contempt of public authorities is punishable in accordance with the first
and third paragraphs of article 263.”
4 Under article 442, “any allegation or charge likely to be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the
person or entity at which it is directed constitutes defamation.”
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
GE.26-05779
3
14.
The source notes that Ms. El Alami had been arrested for the first time in March 2022
and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on similar charges, including contempt of a public
authority. On appeal, her sentence was increased because of comments that she made during
the hearings that were deemed offensive to the authorities and the judicial system. Her
release, following a royal pardon, in July 2024 received widespread media coverage, making
her a figure who is well known to the authorities and recognized for her activism.
15.
Currently being held at the local Aïn Sebaâ Prison No. 1 in Casablanca, Ms. El Alami
reportedly did not have contact with her family until about 20 days after her arrest, on around
23 July 2025.
16.
During her detention, Ms. El Alami was ill-treated by fellow inmates who were being
manipulated by prison officials, which led her to request a change of cell. Since she did not
receive a response to her request, Ms. El Alami went on hunger strike to protest against the
arbitrary nature of her detention, which reportedly led to her being placed in solitary
confinement for fifteen days.
17.
According to the source, Ms. El Alami suffers from several chronic conditions, such
as diabetes and kidney problems, for which she is not receiving appropriate medical care,
further exacerbating her state of health and vulnerability while in detention.
(ii)
Legal analysis
18.
The source maintains that Ms. El Alami’s detention is arbitrary under categories I, II,
III and V of the methods of work of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
19.
The source notes that Ms. El Alami was arrested without being shown an arrest
warrant and that she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest. In the present case, she
was reportedly abducted on a public street by plainclothes police officers, who forced her
into an unmarked vehicle before taking her to the police station. Only after she had been held
incommunicado for 24 hours did the police authorities officially acknowledge her arrest.
20.
When she was brought before the public prosecutor’s office, after 48 hours in custody,
she was denied the right to legal counsel, even though she had requested it. Vague allegations
regarding her social media posts were levelled at her. Furthermore, during her questioning,
she was not permitted to review the contents of the statements presented to her for signature.
21.
The source notes that Ms. El Alami was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, including
for contempt of court, contempt of a public authority and spreading false allegations. It argues
that the Criminal Code does not clearly define the scope of the charges brought against Ms. El
Alami, particularly with regard to defamation and “offensive” remarks.
22.
The source maintains that, in any event, and in accordance with the principles of
necessity and proportionality, the authorities should have considered less restrictive measures
than pretrial detention to ensure Ms. El Alami’s appearance in court without unduly impairing
her freedom. The failure to make use of these alternative measures therefore highlights the
arbitrary and disproportionate nature of Ms. El Alami’s deprivation of liberty.
b.
Category II
23.
The source states that Ms. El Alami’s arrest stems solely from her exercise of freedom
of expression in accordance with article 19 of the Covenant. The legal proceedings brought
against her for spreading false allegations and for contempt of public authorities are directly
linked to her posts and public statements, which are simply the peaceful expression of critical
opinions and are not based on any act of violence or criminal behaviour.
24.
Under these circumstances, charging Ms. El Alami with making statements that
constitute an offence under national law could not be considered necessary or proportionate
under article 19 (3) of the Covenant.
25.
The source argues that, even if the contentious content could be interpreted as
criticism directed at the public authorities, it falls within the scope of legitimate democratic
debate and constitutes a peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
4
GE.26-05779
26.
Furthermore, Ms. El Alami’s current deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed without
taking her previous incarceration into account. Having already been convicted of similar
offences, she was known to the authorities, the media and human rights circles.
27.
The source notes that, in any case, the sentence handed down to Ms. El Alami does
not meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality, which principles must
be met for any restriction of fundamental rights. A 3-year prison sentence for merely
publishing peaceful criticism clearly goes beyond what is necessary to protect a legitimate
State interest.
c.
Category III
28.
The source states that the violations of Ms. El Alami’s right to a fair trial are of such
gravity as to give her deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character.
29.
It points out that Ms. El Alami was brought before the public prosecutor’s office
without the assistance of a lawyer. During her questioning, she was reportedly not permitted
to review the record of her statement and refused to sign it, despite being pressured to do so.
According to the source, Ms. El Alami’s inability to review the record of her statement left
her unaware of the exact scope of the charges against her, preventing her from understanding
the nature of the charges and preparing an adequate and informed defence.
30.
The source considers that the combination of these violations constitutes a serious
breach of fundamental procedural rights, in particular, Ms. El Alami’s right to be informed
promptly and in detail of the charges against her, her right to effective legal assistance, her
right to challenge the evidence presented against her, and the principle of equality of arms.
d.
Category V
31.
The source claims that Ms. El Alami’s detention cannot be interpreted as the result of
ordinary criminal proceedings but as part of efforts to suppress dissenting voices and to
silence Ms. El Alami because of her public statements.
32.
The source notes that this is Ms. El Alami’s second arrest on similar grounds, which
demonstrates the existence of a desire to punish her. The measures taken against her are based
solely on her peaceful and critical posts on social media, which contained no calls for
violence or any acts that could constitute a criminal offence.
33.
The source considers that, in the absence of any wrongdoing or criminal intent on the
part of Ms. El Alami, the charges brought against her, in her capacity as a well-known civil
society activist, are groundless and do not serve any legitimate purpose of maintaining order
or protecting public safety.
(b)
Response from the Government
34.
On 27 November 2025, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Ms. El Alami to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about her by
26 January 2026 and to ensure her physical and mental integrity.
35.
On 20 January 2026, the Government requested an extension of the deadline for
responding, which was granted, with 25 February 2026 being set as the new deadline.
36.
In its response of 24 February 2026, the Government states that a criminal
investigation has been launched, under the supervision of the public prosecutor’s office,
following a series of Facebook posts attributed to Ms. El Alami, in which she made insulting
and defamatory remarks about judges, civil servants and law enforcement officers. She
named judges whom she described as corrupt, in addition to posting photos of people without
their consent.
37.
The Government states that Ms. El Alami was interviewed on a preliminary basis on
1 July 2025 after being informed of all her legal rights, including the right to be represented
by counsel, but that she expressly waived her right to a defence. She admitted to the charges
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
GE.26-05779
5
against her, which are governed by articles 129, 263 and 447-2 of the Criminal Code, and
confirmed that she was the author of the posts in question.5
38.
According to the Government, in a ruling issued on 16 September 2025, the
Casablanca Court of First Instance sentenced Ms. El Alami to 3 years’ imprisonment and a
fine of DH 20,000. The ruling was upheld by the Casablanca Court of Appeal on
17 December 2025, following appeals filed by Ms. El Alami and the public prosecutor’s
office. On 18 December 2025, Ms. El Alami filed an application for judicial review.
39.
The Government disputes the claim that Ms. El Alami was abducted and was not
informed of the reasons for her arrest. It claims that, on 1 July 2025, three police officers
went to her home to take her to the police station and question her about the claims under
investigation. The police stopped her near her home after showing her their badges and
explaining the purpose of their visit. Ms. El Alami agreed to accompany the officers to the
headquarters of the national brigade of the criminal investigation police in Casablanca in a
service vehicle belonging to the criminal investigation police.
40.
After being transferred to the headquarters of the criminal investigation police,
Ms. El Alami was informed once again of the charges against her, her right to remain silent
and her right to appoint a lawyer or receive legal aid.
41.
The Government states that Ms. El Alami was held in police custody from 1–3 July
2025, in accordance with article 66 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This decision was
based on investigations conducted by the national brigade of the criminal investigation police
and the questioning of Ms. El Alami, which led to the conclusion that she had actively
participated in the dissemination and sharing of comments and digital content containing
insulting and defamatory comments about constitutional institutions, judges and public
officials in the performance of their duties, and that she had repeatedly disseminated
misleading information and inaccurate claims presented as facts.
42.
The Government states that Ms. El Alami delayed notifying her family of her arrest
until the following day so that she would not disturb them during the night. That is why two
police officers informed her family on 2 July 2025.
43.
The Government maintains that the source is confusing police custody in a single-
person cell with the legal concept of isolation in the criminal and disciplinary sense. It notes
that Ms. El Alami was placed in a single-person cell within the security facilities of the
headquarters of the national brigade of the criminal investigation police, which are in
compliance with international standards on the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty
and have been inspected by the relevant national and international bodies.
44.
The Government notes that, according to the information contained in the record of
Ms. El Alami’s statement, which she signed, she did not request legal counsel when she
appeared before the public prosecutor’s office following the end of her police custody on
3 July 2025. She was informed of her right to legal counsel and expressly waived that right.
Once the proceedings began, however, she appointed six lawyers to represent her.
45.
The Government considers that the questioning conducted by the public prosecutor’s
office focused on specific and detailed acts constituting offences punishable by law,
including the making of incriminating statements and the identifying of victims. Contrary to
what the source claims, this would have allowed Ms. El Alami to learn the nature of the
charges against her.
46.
With regard to the alleged violation of the principle of legality arising from the lack
of definition of the scope of the acts constituting offences, the Government maintains that the
Criminal Code clearly and precisely defines the constituent elements of the offences on which
the prosecution and conviction in this case are based.
5 The Government does not explain why article 129 of the Criminal Code, which concerns complicity
in an offence classified as a felony or misdemeanour, is relevant in this case.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
6
GE.26-05779
47.
The Government claims that Ms. El Alami read the record of her statement prepared
by the national brigade of the criminal investigation police on 2 July 2025 and that she
approved its contents, without making any additions, comments or changes, and then refused
to sign it. According to the Government, this confirms that she was fully aware of the contents
of the record of her statement.
48.
The Government states that the decision to place Ms. El Alami in pretrial detention,
taken by the prosecutor at the Casablanca Court of First Instance, was justified and based on
legitimate grounds, namely, the lack of sufficient guarantees that she would appear in court,
the gravity of the charges against her, in the light of their implications for public safety and
order, and the harm done to the rights and reputation of others, given that she had admitted
to the charges during her preliminary confession before the prosecutor.
49.
The Government also rejects the source’s claim that there is a connection between
Ms. El Alami’s arrest and her exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It refers to the
Working Group’s jurisprudence, according to which the exercise of freedom of expression
must not incite to crime, racial hatred or violence, or threaten public safety or order, public
health, public morals, or the rights or reputation of others.6 This approach is consistent with
the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated, in the case of Jishkariani
v. Georgia, that unsubstantiated allegations of criminal acts against a political figure are not
protected under the right to freedom of expression and constitute an attack on personal and
business reputation in violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.7
50.
As for the numerous legal proceedings initiated by the public prosecutor’s office
against Ms. El Alami, the Government states that they are based primarily on the multiple
offences she has committed and that her conviction for prior offences does not exempt her
from being held responsible for subsequent offences.
51.
The Government disputes the claim that Ms. El Alami’s prison sentence does not meet
the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality. It explains that the competent
court based its decision on the applicable legal provisions, which require that the penalty
prescribed for the most serious offence be handed down.
52.
With regard to the allegations raised under category III of the working methods, the
Government maintains that, contrary to the claim that Ms. El Alami was pressured to sign
the record of her statement, she exercised her right not to sign it, a fact noted at the bottom
of the document by the criminal investigation officer in charge of the investigation. The
Government further notes that Ms. El Alami never mentioned to the competent authorities
that she had been subjected to pressure that could undermine the credibility of the record of
her statement. On the contrary, she confirmed everything contained in her preliminary
confession.
53.
The Government notes that Ms. El Alami, upon arriving at the headquarters of the
criminal investigation police, was informed of her legal rights, including her right to be
informed of the charges against her, her right to remain silent, and her right to appoint a
lawyer or to request that one be appointed through legal aid, and that she was informed of
her rights once again after she was taken into police custody.
54.
Ms. El Alami waived her right to legal counsel during her appearance before the
public prosecutor’s office and maintained this position during the first hearing of her trial on
3 July 2025. Nevertheless, the court gave her sufficient time to prepare her defence.
55.
The Government adds that Ms. El Alami was subsequently assisted by several
lawyers, who had the opportunity to review the case file, submit applications for provisional
release and raise any procedural or substantive objections that they deemed appropriate,
including objections based on the absence of a situation of flagrante delicto and challenges
to the technical report and the formalities governing the record of the statement prepared by
the criminal investigation police. They also had the opportunity to discuss the evidence
6 See opinion No. 41/2005.
7 See European Court of Human Rights, Jishkariani v. Georgia, application No. 18925/09, judgment,
20 September 2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
GE.26-05779
7
presented in court, in a public and adversarial hearing before an independent and impartial
tribunal, in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
56.
The Government maintains that the trial in question took place within a reasonable
time frame – approximately two months after the arrest – and that most of the delays resulted
from requests made by the defence lawyers as they prepared the defence.
57.
With regard to the allegation that Ms. El Alami waived her right to appeal against the
decision because the prison sentence handed down in a previous case had been increased by
a court of appeal, the Government maintains that the right to appeal against judicial decisions
is guaranteed by the Constitution. Contrary to what the source claims, Ms. El Alami filed an
appeal against the lower court’s ruling. The ruling was upheld by the Casablanca Court of
Appeal on 17 December 2025 and Ms. El Alami filed an application for judicial review on
18 December 2025.
58.
The Government disputes that there is any connection between Ms. El Alami’s
conviction and her status as a human rights defender. It points out that all forms of
discrimination are prohibited in Morocco.
59.
The Government rejects all allegations regarding Ms. El Alami’s prison conditions
and health. It notes that at the local Aïn Sebaâ Prison No. 1, she had been placed in a cell that
met the standards in force regarding accommodation, space, ventilation, lighting and
healthcare facilities and that she had the right to go for a walk. Immediately after her
sentencing, at her request, she was transferred from the local Aïn Sebaâ Prison No. 1 to El
Jadida Prison No. 2.
60.
Ms. El Alami is entitled to receive visits from her family – the last such visit took
place on 17 December 2025 – and she is also in contact with the outside world. She has
received more than 18 visits from her lawyer. In response to the source’s allegation that
Ms. El Alami was unable to communicate with her family for more than 20 days following
her conviction, that is, from 23 July 2025, the Government maintains that, on 7 July 2025, a
visit permit was issued to one of Ms. El Alami’s family members, who, according to the
information in the visit log, visited her two days later.
61.
According to the Government, the information indicates that Ms. El Alami was not
subjected to any threats or pressure during her incarceration. Furthermore, the law relating to
the organization and management of prisons expressly prohibits any form of mistreatment.
The Government also states that the hunger strike undertaken by Ms. El Alami is in no way
connected to her request for a cell transfer or her allegations of ill-treatment. Furthermore,
Ms. El Alami underwent a medical examination that confirmed that the hunger strike had no
impact on her health.
62.
The Government states that, in accordance with a decision taken by the disciplinary
committee, Ms. El Alami was placed in solitary confinement for 15 days because she had
engaged in conduct contrary to the law, namely, proffering insults, making threats, engaging
in acts of humiliation and behaviour that disrupted the prison, and showing a lack of
discipline toward staff and other inmates.
63.
Lastly, with regard to Ms. El Alami’s state of health, the Government notes that, on
4 July 2025, she underwent the medical examination required for all new inmates, during
which she stated that she did not suffer from any chronic illness. Medical tests were
conducted on 23 December 2025 to screen for diabetes, but her blood sugar level was found
to be stable and her creatinine level was normal. At this time, her condition is stable and
normal and she does not require any special medical attention.
(c)
Additional information and comments from the source
64.
On 30 December 2025, the source informed the Working Group that Ms. El Alami
had been assaulted by prison guards on 25 December 2025. After asking Ms. El Alami if she
had brought her case before the Working Group, one of the guards spat at her and several
others beat her. Ms. El Alami was verbally reprimanded in front of other inmates, her clothes
and sheets were torn and soaked, and she was not given a change of clothes.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
8
GE.26-05779
65.
The Government’s response was submitted to the source, which provided additional
comments on 10 March 2026.
66.
The source notes that the information that the Government provides on the place of
Ms. El Alami’s arrest is contradictory, as it is described alternately as having taken place at
her home and near her home. According to the source, the Government’s explanation of
Ms. El Alami’s decision not to notify her family until the day after her arrest amounts to an
admission that several hours passed without her family being informed of her arrest and
without her having access to a lawyer. For these reasons, and because she was placed in
solitary confinement, she was deprived of all contact with the outside world, which amounts
to incommunicado detention.
67.
The source denies that Ms. El Alami voluntarily waived her right to legal counsel. It
believes that the mere inclusion of a note to that effect in the record of her statement is not
sufficient to establish that the waiver was free and voluntary. It points out that the statement
that Ms. El Alami “read and approved” the record before refusing to sign it in no way proves
that she actually had the opportunity to review the document.
68.
The Government has not established that Ms. El Alami’s deprivation of liberty was in
compliance with the requirements of necessity and proportionality applicable to any
deprivation of liberty. The source further contends that the Government, in relying solely on
the fact that Ms. El Alami was the author of the posts and on their alleged offensiveness to
the reputation of others, has failed to demonstrate either the necessity or the proportionality
of the restriction of her freedom of expression.
69.
The source claims that the repeated prosecutions and the accumulation of sentences
for acts relating to public expression demonstrate a punitive use of criminal proceedings. It
argues that legal assistance can be considered fully effective only if the accused person has
sufficient time and reasonable conditions in which to prepare his or her defence. The
argument that the postponements of hearings are attributable to the defence cannot be
interpreted as evidence that procedural rights have been respected. On the contrary, such
requests are often necessary in order to remedy procedural irregularities.
70.
The source notes that Ms. El Alami continued to be subjected to verbal abuse and
pressure while in detention. In protest, she went on several hunger strikes, which, owing in
particular to her diabetes, caused her health to deteriorate to such an extent that she had to be
rushed to hospital. According to the source, these findings are all the more concerning as the
Government acknowledges that Ms. El Alami was held in solitary confinement as a
disciplinary measure for 15 days. The ill-treatment reportedly reached such a level that
Ms. El Alami eventually requested a transfer to another prison, even if it meant being further
away from her family. She was transferred to El Jadida Prison No. 2 on 13 January 2026.
2.
Discussion
71.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
72.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Ms. El Alami 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.8 Mere assertions by the Government
that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.
(a)
Category I
73.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without legal basis.
74.
The source claims that Ms. El Alami was abducted on the street by plainclothes police
officers in an unmarked vehicle and that she was not shown an arrest warrant or given any
other information regarding the reasons for her arrest. The Government states that the officers
8 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
GE.26-05779
9
went to Ms. El Alami’s home and then arrested her near her home after informing her of the
reasons for her arrest and the need to question her. Ms. El Alami reportedly agreed to
accompany them in their vehicle.
75.
The Working Group recalls that, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal
basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must
invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is typically done
through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document). 9 In this regard,
article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the
time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and must be promptly informed of any
charges against him or her.
76.
Since the police went to Ms. El Alami’s home and the arrest took place after she, as a
well-known activist, had posted a live video of the protest in which she was participating, the
Working Group considers that the police went to Ms. El Alami’s home with the intention of
arresting her. It should be noted that the Government does not directly address the allegation
that Ms. El Alami was arrested without an arrest warrant and does not demonstrate that she
was in a situation of flagrante delicto.
77.
Although the Government has argued that the officers provided grounds for
Ms. El Alami’s arrest, the Working Group notes, on the basis of the information provided by
the source and the Government, that there is no mention anywhere of a warrant having been
shown to Ms. El Alami. The Government has therefore not answered the relevant question,
that is, whether a warrant was shown to Ms. El Alami at the time of her arrest. This therefore
constitutes a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
78.
The source states that the authorities were required to prioritize alternatives to pretrial
detention but failed to do so. The Government responds that, given the gravity of the charges
against Ms. El Alami, and the lack of sufficient guarantees that she would appear in court,
the pretrial detention ordered by the prosecutor was lawful.
79.
The Working Group reiterates that, according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial
detention should be the exception rather than the rule. Courts must examine whether
alternatives to pretrial detention would render detention unnecessary in the particular case.10
80.
The Working Group notes that the Government has not demonstrated how it was
established that there was a risk that Ms. El Alami would abscond, cause harm to third parties,
tamper with evidence or hinder the conduct of the investigation. It further notes that the
Government has failed to demonstrate that alternative measures to detention were considered.
Given that the offences with which Ms. El Alami was charged were non-violent in nature,
the Working Group considers that alternative measures to detention should have been
considered. The Government’s lack of specificity in describing its individualized assessment
process, including with regard to the consideration of alternative measures to detention, is
incompatible with Ms. El Alami’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant and article 9 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
81.
With regard to Ms. El Alami’s lack of contact with her family for approximately 20
days following her arrest, the Government maintains that she was not held incommunicado
but had been placed in a single-person cell. The Government also claims that a member of
Ms. El Alami’s family was able to visit her on 9 July 2025.
82.
The Working Group notes the conflicting information provided by the source and the
Government regarding family contact following the arrest. The Working Group points out
that principle 15 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment provides that “communication of the detained or imprisoned
person with the outside world, and in particular his family or counsel, shall not be denied for
more than a matter of days”. It reminds the Government of the importance of ensuring that
9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23; and Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
10
GE.26-05779
detained persons have regular contact with their families and people outside the facility,
including in the days immediately following their arrest.
83.
The source affirms that Ms. El Alami was denied any meaningful opportunity to
challenge her detention until she was convicted. The Government disputes this allegation,
citing the proceedings in which she was brought before the judicial authorities. Noting that
the source confirms that Ms. El Alami was brought before a judge on 3 July, two days after
her initial arrest, the Working Group does not consider that a violation of the right to be
brought promptly before a judicial authority has been demonstrated.
84.
Furthermore, the source argues that the national legal provisions on which
Ms. El Alami’s convictions are based are too general and lack specificity, particularly with
regard to the definition of the term “offensive”, an argument that the Working Group will
address below under category II.
85.
In view of the foregoing, the Working Group finds that the detention of Ms. El Alami
was arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
86.
The source notes that Ms. El Alami is a blogger, a human rights activist and a well-
known figure in Moroccan civil society. Before her arrest, on 1 July 2025, she regularly
commented on political and social developments on social media and was actively involved
in the protection of human rights. The source also notes that Ms. El Alami’s arrest occurred
shortly after she had livestreamed footage of a protest denouncing the death of a prisoner.
87.
According to the source, the charges against Ms. El Alami are entirely related to her
online posts and public statements. Furthermore, the conduct in question was exclusively
peaceful in nature: it did not involve any call for violence, any incitement or any criminal act,
apart from the expression itself.
88.
The Government claims that the charges brought against Ms. El Alami were not
related to the exercise of freedom of expression, but were based on criminal acts, namely, the
publication of statements that undermined public safety and order and harmed the rights and
reputation of others. The Government states that Ms. El Alami admitted that she was
responsible for the publications in question.
89.
The Working Group notes that the Government’s response does not dispute the claim
that the charges against Ms. El Alami stem from her online posts. The dispute centres
primarily on whether these publications fall within the scope of article 19 of the Covenant or
whether, on the contrary, they constitute conduct that is a criminal offence under Moroccan
law.
90.
The Working Group acknowledges that the relevant provisions – articles 263, 265,
442, and 447–2 of the Criminal Code – provide a formal legal basis for the charges. However,
the source states that the offences of contempt and dissemination of false allegations are
worded in excessively vague and indefinite terms, leaving excessive room for judicial
interpretation.
91.
The Working Group recalls that any restriction on freedom of expression must be
formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct
accordingly and to foresee the consequences of their actions. Provisions that allow for the
criminalization of peaceful criticism of public authorities solely on the grounds that such
criticism is deemed offensive or insulting do not meet the requirement of predictability.
92.
With regard to the allegations made by the source, the Working Group notes the
concerns raised by the source as well as the Government’s detailed response in this regard.
The Working Group is concerned about the Government’s persistent use of these provisions
to target activists and believes that the vague nature of these provisions has contributed to the
violation under category II.
93.
Secondly, the Working Group notes that the Government cites the protection of the
rights and reputation of others, including judges and public officials, as a legitimate objective
underlying the prosecutions. The Working Group points out that, in the view of the Human
Rights Committee, the decriminalization of defamation should be considered by States
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
GE.26-05779
11
Parties, the application of the criminal law should be countenanced only in the most serious
of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.11
94.
Lastly, with regard to the importance of the criteria of necessity and proportionality,
the Working Group considers that the Government has not demonstrated that a 3-year prison
sentence for posting online comments about the conduct of public officials and prison
conditions is proportionate to the legitimate purpose pursued. Criticizing the Government,
commenting on public affairs, and discussing human rights are at the very heart of the
protection afforded under article 19, and the mere fact that certain forms of expression might
be considered insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify a criminal conviction.12
The Working Group also notes that the case tried by the European Court of Human Rights,
which the Government cites, concerned entirely different circumstances, in which a minister
had publicly accused a civil servant of criminal acts before the conclusion of an internal
investigation. In the present case, it should be noted that the Government has not
demonstrated that Ms. El Alami’s remarks incited violence, disclosed confidential
information, or caused harm other than to the reputations of the individuals criticized.
95.
The Working Group also notes that legal proceedings have repeatedly been brought
against Ms. El Alami, which would suggest an attempt to silence her rather than a neutral
application of the law. Furthermore, the short time span between Ms. El Alami’s live
broadcast during the demonstration and her arrest reinforces the conclusion that the contents
of her speech, rather than an abstract concern for public order, led to her detention.
96.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that Ms. El Alami’s
deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of her right to freedom of opinion and
expression, as guaranteed by article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and that the restrictions imposed by the Moroccan authorities
do not meet the requirements of legality, legitimate purpose and necessity set out in article
19 (3) of the Covenant. The Working Group therefore finds that Ms. El Alami’s detention is
arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
97.
Given its finding that Ms. El Alami’s detention is arbitrary under category II, the
Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should take place. However, according to
information received by the Working Group, Ms. El Alami was found guilty and sentenced.
98.
According to the source, Ms. El Alami was not allowed to review the record of her
statement and refused to sign it despite being pressured to do so, which allegedly prevented
her from fully understanding the scope of the charges against her. The Government, for its
part, argues that Ms. El Alami was permitted to read the record but subsequently refused to
sign it. After reviewing all the information on this matter, the Working Group concludes that
there is insufficient evidence to reach a firm conclusion, under category III, regarding
whether pressure was exerted on Ms. El Alami to sign the record of her statement.
99.
The source also notes that Ms. El Alami was unable to secure legal representation for
her initial court appearance. According to the Government, Ms. El Alami was informed of
her right to legal counsel prior to her appearance but waived that right. The Government adds
that, despite this, she was given sufficient time to prepare her defence, thereby ensuring a fair
trial, and that she was subsequently represented by six lawyers.
100.
The Working Group notes that it has not been clearly established why Ms. El Alami
did not have legal representation while in police custody from 1–3 July 2025. However, it is
not persuaded that Ms. El Alami waived her right to legal representation. The source has
described in detail how Ms. El Alami requested legal assistance but was denied access to a
lawyer. The Government’s claim that Ms. El Alami waived her right to legal counsel is not
convincing, especially since she refused to sign the record of her statement (as the
Government itself acknowledges), which suggests that there was a disagreement about what
was communicated during the questioning. The Working Group therefore finds that there has
11 Ibid.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
12
GE.26-05779
been a violation of the right to a fair trial under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant and
articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.13
101.
Consequently, the Working Group concludes that Ms. El Alami’s rights have been
violated under category III.
(d)
Category V
102.
According to the source, the Government’s detention of Ms. El Alami is
discriminatory because of her work as a human rights activist and her critical views of the
authorities.
103.
The Working Group notes that there are several indicators of discriminatory intent:
Ms. El Alami was arrested a few days after posting a live video on a landmark human rights
issue – the death of a person in custody – for which she held the authorities directly
responsible; this is the second case brought against Ms. El Alami on substantially similar
charges; she was reportedly subjected to reprisals after bringing the matter before the
Working Group.
104.
The Working Group is not persuaded by the Government’s position on this matter,
which is that that there is no connection between the charges brought against Ms. El Alami
and her status as an activist or her views.
105.
The evidence available to the Working Group points to a practice that is not consistent
with a neutral and impartial application of criminal law. The two successive prosecutions
brought against Ms. El Alami, both related to the peaceful expression of views critical of the
Government and the human rights situation in the country, the increase in her initial sentence
following remarks that she made during the hearing, her release through an exceptional
mechanism (a royal pardon) rather than through ordinary legal channels, as well as the
physical reprisals to which she was reportedly subjected after she referred her case to the
Working Group, collectively indicate that her status as a recognized activist and critic of the
authorities was a significant, and likely decisive, factor in the decision to place her in
detention.
106.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that Ms. El Alami’s
deprivation of liberty was imposed on discriminatory grounds, in particular because of her
political opinions and her human rights activities, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and the
Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(Declaration on Human Rights Defenders). The Working Group therefore concludes that
Ms. El Alami’s detention also falls under category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
107.
The Working Group is deeply concerned about allegations that Ms. El Alami was
subjected to reprisals while in detention because she had referred her case to the Working
Group. These reprisals, which occurred after the Working Group sent the communication
regarding Ms. El Alami’s case to the Government, undermine the framework guaranteeing
the right of every person not to be subjected to arbitrary detention, as well as the related rights
set out in articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. Any act of reprisal of this kind that is reported
should be the subject of a thorough and prompt investigation.
108.
The Working Group recalls that, under the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,
States have an obligation to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of all persons
against violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as
a consequence of their legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration. The
conduct described in this case, particularly the reprisals to which Ms. El Alami were
subjected, falls squarely within the categories of harm that States are required to prevent.
13 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), paras. 34 and 37.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/8
GE.26-05779
13
3.
Disposition
109.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Saida El Alami, being in contravention of articles 2, 7,
9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14
and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I, II, III and V.
110.
The Working Group requests the Government of Morocco to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Ms. El Alami without delay and bring it into conformity with the
relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
111.
The Working Group considers that, given all the circumstances of the case, the
appropriate measure would be to release Ms. El Alami immediately and accord her the right
to obtain redress, including compensation, in accordance with international law.
112.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. El Alami and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
her rights.
113.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
114.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Ms. El Alami has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. El Alami;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Ms. El
Alami’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 Morocco with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
115.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
116.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would
enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
117.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.14
[Adopted on 24 March 2026]
14 Human Rights Council, resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.