A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79 torture or other ill-treatment. Such prohibition applies irrespective of the offence allegedly committed by the accused person.14 58. Every detainee has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. 15 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.16 Moreover, sick prisoners whose health conditions require specialist treatment are to be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals.17 The failure to provide access to adequate health care has been held to violate the rights to health.18 59. The source claims that Mr. El-Elaimy’s case shows an intentional practice maintained by the authorities to deny him his right to access medical care, which puts his life at serious risk of death or irreparable harm. Mr. El-Elaimy’s health is reportedly at grave risk due to the intentional restrictions set by the prison authorities that prevent him from having a medical examination and accessing treatment inside or outside the prison. Response from the Government 60. On 13 August 2021, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide, by 12 October 2021, detailed information about the situation of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of Egypt under international human rights law, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government of Egypt to ensure their physical and mental integrity. 61. The Working Group regrets that the Government did not submit a reply nor did it request an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of work19. Discussion 62. 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. 63. In determining whether the detention of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim was 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.20 In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source. 64. The source claims that the detention of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy constitutes arbitrary deprivation of their liberty, falling within categories I, II and III of the arbitrary 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and A/57/44, para. 53 (i). 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; rules 25 and 27 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (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. A/HRC/36/38. A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.