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

Select target paragraph3