Advance unedited version A/HRC/WGAD/2022/ was referred to the court. According to the source, numerous official complaints were submitted to the public prosecutor and the minister of interior on Mr. Ali’s behalf, inquiring about his disappearance. These were reportedly not answered. 83. These allegations were put to the Government which chose not to address them. 84. The Working Group notes that enforced disappearances are prohibited by international law and constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention. 11 In fact the Working Group has consistently asserted that holding persons at secret, undisclosed locations and in circumstances unidentified to the person’s family violates their right to contest the legality of their detention before a court or tribunal under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. Judicial oversight of any detention is a central safeguard for personal liberty and is critical in ensuring that the detention has a legitimate basis. 85. The Working Group also takes note that article 10 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance provides that individuals deprived of their liberty must be held in a place of detention that is officially recognized, and that states must ensure that no one is held secretly in detention. 86. In the circumstances attending the incarceration of the four individuals at an unknown location for varying periods, the Working Group finds that they were unable to challenge the legality of their detentions before a court. Consequently, their rights to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant were violated. The Working Group also recalls that principle 15 of the Body of Principles 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”. The four individuals subject of the current communication were each kept at a location unknown to their families and lawyers. This entailed a wilful refusal to disclose their fate or whereabouts or to acknowledge their detention. This lacks any valid legal basis under any circumstance. It is also inherently arbitrary, as it placed the detainees outside the protection of the law in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the Covenant. The Working Group refers this matter to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. 87. Further, in regards to Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Sahloob, the Working Group notes that despite having served the entirety of their reduced sentence, the authorities failed to release them and they were both detained and new charges were brought against them. Such practice of repeat pre-trial detention on charges that are very similar to the previous ones is akin to ‘revolving door’ pre-trial detention, which is entirely incompatible with article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Working Group thus considers that the rights of Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Sahloob under article 9 (3) of the Covenant were further violated. In addition, the Working Group finds that their right under article 9 (1) of the Covenant were violated in so far as both individuals were not released despite having completed their sentence, and were therefore detained without any legal basis. 88. For the reasons enumerated above, the Working Group finds that the arrests and detentions of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil, and Ali lack legal basis and are therefore arbitrary under category I. Category III 89. As regards category III, the source alleges numerous violations of the four individual’s right to a fair trial protected under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant. 11 See Opinions Nos. 5/2020; 6/2020; 11/2020; 13/2020. See also Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 35, para. 17. 11