A/HRC/WGAD/2021/45
to freedom from torture and ill-treatment, and he was kept in poor detention conditions, in
violation of the right to humane conditions of detention.
54.
Mr. El-Baker reportedly suffers from denial of medical care, in violation of his right
to health. Allegedly, this is done deliberately since Mr. El-Baker was not allowed to be
examined by a doctor since his detention began, and even when he asked to be examined by
a prison doctor, his request was denied.
55.
In the case of Mr. Imam, the source claims that he was subjected to enforced
disappearance, in violation of his right to liberty and right to have access to the outside world,
which are essential rights to the fulfilment of a fair trial. Even if Mr. Imam was disappeared
for a short period, the source argues that it still violates the domestic and international laws
because it put him out of the protection of law and facilitated his ill-treatment. In addition,
Mr. Imam was maltreated in violation of the right to freedom from torture and other illtreatment.
56.
With regard to the case of Ms. Hassan, it is alleged that she was subjected to enforced
disappearance, in violation of her right to liberty and the right to have access to the outside
world, which are essential rights to the fulfilment of a fair trial.
Category V
57.
The source claims that the deprivation of liberty of the four human rights defenders
constitutes a violation of international law for reasons of discrimination based on status, and
which is aimed towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights. In this regard,
it is alleged that the arrest and detention constitute discrimination against them because of
their work as lawyers and human rights defenders.
58.
Finally, the source argues that, while being detained on remand under their old cases,
the four human rights defenders found themselves accused under new cases and of new
charges, similar to their old ones. Moreover, the accusation against three of the human rights
lawyers under the same new case, No. 855/2020, points to the arbitrariness of using fake
charges against any perceived form of opposition, based on weak or no evidence. Allegedly,
this has become a systematic practice that aims to keeping peaceful political dissidents under
indefinite detention.
Response from the Government
59.
On 5 February 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 6 April 2021, detailed information about the
situation of Mr. El-Baker, Ms. El-Masry, Mr. Imam and Ms. Hassan, 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. Moreover, the Working Group
called upon the Government of Egypt to ensure their physical and mental integrity.
60.
The Working Group regrets that it received no reply from the Government, even
though it requested and was granted an extension, in accordance with paragraph 16 of the
Working Group’s methods of work. 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.
Discussion
61.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. El-Baker, Ms. El-Masry, Mr. Imam and
Ms. Hassan 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.2 In the present
2
A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
7