A/HRC/WGAD/2021/45 she underwent additional medical examinations. On 27 January 2020, she was transferred to the prison’s hospital. After two days, she was examined by a specialist physician who ordered an urgent echocardiogram, which was not carried out. She was later returned to prison. 46. Since then, Ms. Hassan has been kept in detention, while being denied her right to medical care, except for medications that her family periodically provides to the prison administration. On 22 November 2020, owing to a recurrence of severe pain, Ms. Hassan was transferred to the prison’s hospital, and examined by a general practitioner in training. Ms. Hassan was informed that her left kidney had stopped working and that her right kidney was not functioning properly. They refused to grant Ms. Hassan and her family access to her medical record or to be informed about the examinations. 47. In December 2020, Ms. Hassan’s family submitted a request to the Attorney General to allow Ms. Hassan to undergo a medical examination. However, the family’s demand was denied and they were prevented from having access to Ms. Hassan’s medical reports. Ms. Hassan has also not been allowed to receive the medication she needs. 48. On 6 December 2020, during a hearing about the renewal of her pretrial detention, Ms. Hassan exhibited evidence of severe physical pain and difficulty of movement. She also informed the judge that the prison’s clinic could not offer her appropriate medical care. Nevertheless, her detention was renewed. 49. On 17 January 2021, the counselling chamber of the Cairo Criminal Court held a session to consider the renewal of Ms. Hassan’s pretrial detention, despite the fact that her detention on remand had exceeded two years, in alleged violation of the legal limit of two years set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Egypt. During the session, after being allowed to speak, Ms. Hassan addressed the judges and lawyers present at the time, stating that she was being subjected to systematic denial of medical care, and that she demanded to be examined by a medical specialist and to be provided adequate medical treatment. Her detention was renewed for another 45 days and her situation remains critical. Category I 50. The source claims that it is impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty of the four human rights defenders. In this regard, it is alleged that none of them were shown an arrest warrant at the moment of the deprivation of their liberty. Moreover, they were falsely accused, using trumped-up charges, which reportedly are always used against political opponents and human rights defenders in Egypt. The charges were too broad, vague and general; for instance, the Prosecution did not specify to which group the human rights defenders were accused of belonging. Category II 51. According to the source, the arrest and detention of the four human rights defenders falls under category II, as the deprivation of their liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant. In this regard, the source claims that the arrest of the four human rights defenders underlies discrimination against lawyers and human rights defenders in Egypt. 52. In addition, the source argues that, in the case of Mr. Imam, the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant, as his arrest came immediately after his demonstration of solidarity with another detainee. Category III 53. The source claims that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. El-Baker, Mr. Imam and Ms. Hassan falls within category III, owing to the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, which is alleged to be of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. Mr. El-Baker attended his first investigation session in the absence of his lawyer, in violation of his right to legal counsel before trial. In addition, he was reportedly subjected to ill-treatment, in violation of his right 6