A/HRC/WGAD/2021/45 69. On 17 October 2019, Mr. Imam was brought before the Supreme State Security Prosecution and was charged, under case No. 488/2019, with joining a terrorist group, publishing false news and misusing social media. Mr. Imam reportedly informed the prosecution about the ill-treatment to which he was subjected. His statement was not taken into consideration. 70. The circumstances of Ms. Hassan’s arrest materially resemble those of Mr. Imam’s arrest. The information from the source indicates that on 1 November 2018, at 2 a.m., a number of police and State Security agents, some in plainclothes and others in uniforms, raided Ms. Hassan’s house and arrested her without showing an arrest warrant or providing a legal explanation for the arrest. They blindfolded her and took her to the house of a family member. The forces inspected the family member’s house. They then took Ms. Hassan back to her place of residence, which they inspected for around 2.5 hours, while she was kept blindfolded in a car. Later, she was taken to an unknown location and allegedly subjected to enforced disappearance for 20 days. On 2 November 2018, her family filed complaints to the Office of the Public Prosecution and the Minister of Interior; however, they received no response. 71. On 21 November 2018, she appeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution in Cairo, which charged her with joining a terrorist group and inciting harm to the national economy, under case No. 1552/2018. Ms. Hassan was later transferred to Al-Qanater Prison for women. 72. The Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, the authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant. Stated differently, international law on detention includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant to ensure the exercise of effective control by a competent, independent and impartial judicial authority, which is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation, under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 9 and 14 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.3 That was not the case with regard to Mr. El-Baker, Ms. El-Masry, Mr. Imam and Ms. Hassan.4 73. The information from the source is that all four human rights defenders were subjected to pretrial detention, which was renewed periodically for 15 days. In the case of Mr. ElBaker, the renewal of his detention continued until 18 February 2020, when the Criminal Court of Cairo ordered his release pending investigations. Following an appeal by the Supreme State Security Prosecution against the release order, Mr. El-Baker’s pretrial detention was renewed for an additional 45 days, and since then, his pretrial detention has been renewed every 45 days. 74. As for Ms. El-Masry, her pretrial detention was renewed every 15 days, until 29 January 2020, when her case was transferred to the counselling chamber at the Criminal Court of Cairo, which has the authority to renew pretrial detention for 45 days. Since then, it 3 4 The Working Group has maintained from its early years that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. See, for example, decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6–7; No. 3/1993, paras. 6–7; No. 4/1993, para. 6; No. 5/1993, paras. 6 and 8–9; No. 27/1993, para. 6; No. 30/1993, paras. 14 and 17 (a); No. 36/1993, para. 8; No. 43/1993, para. 6; and No. 44/1993, paras. 6– 7. For more recent jurisprudence, see opinions No. 38/2013, para. 23; No. 48/2016, para. 48; No. 21/2017, para. 46; No. 63/2017, para. 66; No. 76/2017, para. 55; No. 83/2017, para. 65; No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 93/2017, para. 44; No. 3/2018, para. 43; No. 10/2018, para. 46; No. 26/2018, para. 54; No. 30/2018, para. 39; No. 38/2018, para. 63; No. 47/2018, para. 56; No. 51/2018, para. 80; No. 63/2018, para. 27; No. 68/2018, para. 39; No. 82/2018, para. 29; No. 6/2020, para. 40; No. 11/2020, para. 38; No. 13/2020, para. 47; No. 14/2020, para. 50; No. 31/2020, para. 41; No. 32/2020, para. 33; No. 33/2020, para. 54; and No. 34/2020, para. 46. See, for example, opinions No. 93/2017, para. 44; No. 10/2018, para. 45–46; No. 36/2018, para. 40; No. 46/2018, para. 48; No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 65/2019, para. 59; No. 71/2019, para. 70; No. 72/2019, para. 40; No. 82/2019, para. 74; No. 6/2020, para. 39; No. 11/2020, para. 37; No. 13/2020, para. 46; No. 14/2020, para. 49; No. 31/2020, para. 40; No. 32/2020, para. 32; No. 33/2020, paras. 53 and 71; and No. 34/2020, para. 44. 9