A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79 of torture and other inhuman treatment, which was allegedly a violation of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.35 The right to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is absolute. It applies in all circumstances and it may never be restricted, including during times of war or states of emergency. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including threats of terrorism or other violent crime, may be invoked to justify torture or other ill-treatment. Such prohibition applies irrespective of the offence allegedly committed by the accused person.36 93. The Working Group has repeatedly asserted that enforced disappearance violates the right to contest the legality of a detention before a court or tribunal.37 Judicial oversight of any detention is a central safeguard for personal liberty 38 and is critical in ensuring that detention has a legitimate basis. The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the allegation of torture during Ms. Abdelhalim’s enforced disappearance. 94. The source also claims that Mr. El-Elaimy was intentionally denied the right to access medical care, which put his life at serious risk or risked irreparable damage to his health. Mr. El-Elaimy is reportedly at a grave risk, due to the intentional restrictions by the prison authorities that prevent his access to a medical examination and treatment inside or outside the prison, at his family’s expense. 95. The Working Group reiterates that every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.39 This right extends not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also to underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food, water and sanitation.40 Moreover, sick prisoners whose health conditions require specialist treatment are to be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. 41 The failure to provide access to adequate health care has been held to violate the right to health.42 96. The Working Group considers that, in the deprivation of Mr. El-Elaimy’s and Ms. Abdelhalim’s liberty, there were multiple violations of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant, to such an extent as to give to the detention an arbitrary character under category III. Category V 97. The source has not specifically made claims that the detention of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim also constituted a category V violation. The Working Group has, however, made its assessment on the facts presented. 98. The Working Group considers that Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim were targeted because of their peaceful activities in the course of exercising their freedom of expression 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i). Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i). Opinions No. 16/2020, No. 15/2020, No. 45/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 9/2019, No. 35/2018, No. 46/2017 and No. 45/2017. United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court; A/HRC/30/37, para. 3; and CAT/C/VNM/CO/1, para. 24. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; article 16 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 14 (2000), paras. 34, 4, 11, 43 and 44; and rules 25 and 27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. Council of Europe, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), “Third general report on the CPT’s activities”, document CPT/Inf (93) 12, 4 June 1993, para. 53. First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), para. 22. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Media Rights Agenda and Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, Cases No. 105/93, No. 128/94, No. 130/94 and No. 152/96, Decision, 31 October 1998; and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, International Pen, Constitutional Rights Project, Interights on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Cases No. 137/94, No. 139/94, No. 154/96 and No. 161/97, Decision, 31 October 1998. 13