A/HRC/WGAD/2021/45 has been renewed every 45 days. Likewise, Mr. Imam’s pretrial detention was renewed every 15 days, until 10 March 2020, when his case was referred to the counselling chamber at the Criminal Court of Cairo. Since then, his pretrial detention has been renewed every 45 days. Ms. Hassan’s pretrial detention was continuously renewed for 15 days until 31 October 2020. Since then, the counselling chamber of the Cairo Criminal Court has renewed her pretrial detention every 45 days. 75. International law concerning the right to personal liberty allows restrictions to this right in appropriate circumstances. The right, however, includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant, in cases that do not involve arrests made in flagrante delicto, to ensure the objectivity of the arrest process. It is also required that the decision on whether the arrest is warranted be taken by an outside authority – that is, a competent, independent and impartial judiciary. This is procedurally inherent in the right to personal liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant, and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. 76. The Working Group finds that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the authorities should have informed each of the four individuals of the reasons for their arrest at the time of the arrest and promptly informed them of the charges. Their failure to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant, and principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. It also renders their arrest devoid of any legal basis. 77. The Working Group has reiterated that according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial detention should be the exception rather than the norm, and should be ordered for the shortest time possible. Put differently, liberty is recognized under article 9 (3) of the Covenant as the core consideration, with detention merely as an exception. Detention pending trial must thus be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. 78. The Working Group notes the source’s submission that none of the four human rights defenders was brought promptly before a judge during their detention – that is, within 48 hours of their arrest, barring absolutely exceptional circumstances, as per the international standard set out in the Working Group’s jurisprudence. 79. The 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 affirms that the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right essential to the preservation of legality in a democratic society. Its absence constitutes a human rights violation. This right, which is in fact a peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms and situations of deprivation of liberty. Judicial oversight of the deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. 80. The Working Group is particularly concerned about the lack of independent judicial oversight over the actions of the detaining authority, and the role of the prosecution in Egypt while ordering the detention, investigation, charging and prosecution of the individuals. In this regard, article 9 of the Covenant requires that detainees be brought promptly before a judge, no later than 48 hours after the arrest, so that there can be independent scrutiny of the actions of the detaining authority and of their legal basis, as well as a decision on the rights and fate of the detainee. However, prosecutors, as officials that take the role of investigating and accusing the defendants, and that are regularly under the hierarchical subordination of the executive branch, cannot be considered as independent judicial authorities under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 5 The Government had, but failed to seize, the opportunity to demonstrate that the detentions of these individuals were promptly subjected to independent judicial oversight, as required by international law. 81. The Working Group observes that the four human rights defenders were not afforded the right to be brought before a court so that it could decide without delay on the lawfulness 5 10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32–33.