A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79 50. The source claims that special courts should not be created to displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.8 They should not examine offences that fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In addition, when special courts exist, they must be independent and impartial and respect fair trial standards.9 The Covenant and regional human rights treaties do not expressly prohibit the establishment of special or specialized courts. However, they require all courts to be competent, independent and impartial. 10 The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 13 (1984) on the rights contained in article 14 of the Covenant, raised concerns about the nature of military or special courts, stating that quite often the reason for the establishment of such courts was to enable exceptional procedures to be applied that did not comply with normal standards of justice. 51. For the source, the reason for the exceptional character of the special courts is that fair trial rights are more likely to be violated before the special courts. Human rights bodies have raised concerns about procedures in such courts, which are inconsistent with fair trial rights, including the right to a trial before an independent, impartial court, the exclusion of evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment and the right to appeal to a higher tribunal.11 52. The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases have been investigated by the Supreme State Security Prosecution. This is a form of special prosecution that refers cases to special security-related courts, where standards of fair trial, regard for evidence and due process have been violated to allow injustices, through which the Government allegedly aims to intimidate its opponents and prevent them from enjoying their rights and freedoms. 53. The source further claims that the rights of any detainee to communicate with the outside world and be visited by family are fundamental safeguards against any attempts by the authorities to engage in human rights violations against the detainee, including torture or any other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance. 54. According to article 17 (2) (d) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, detained and imprisoned persons have the right to communicate with and be visited by their families. The right to receive visits applies to all detainees, regardless of the offence of which they are suspected or accused.12 Under principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, this right can be subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions that are appropriate to a legitimate aim. 55. The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy has been allowed visits by his family only occasionally, under severe restrictions, with no legitimate aim. 56. In addition, the source argues that Ms. Abdelhalim was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment during the time she was subjected to enforced disappearance. She was detained in a dark room, while violently threatened with rape, electrocution and bodily harm, to coerce her to incriminate herself. These practices violate her right to be free from any act that could cause severe suffering, whether physical or mental, and that is inflicted intentionally on a person. This is reported as a violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.13 57. According to the source, the right to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment is absolute. This 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 8 9 10 11 12 13 Principle 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; and sections A (4) (e) and L (c) of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. Commission on Human Rights, resolution 2005/30. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and article 14 of the Covenant. A/63/223, paras. 24, 27 and 32; and A/HRC/13/37/Add.2, paras. 32–35. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Marc Romulus v. Haiti, Case No. 1992, Resolution, 27 May 1977. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i). 7