Advance unedited version A/HRC/WGAD/2022/ 53. In this regard, the source indicates that Principle 15 of the Body of Principles states that a detainee should not be denied the right to communicate with the outside world, particularly the detainee’s family or counsel, for more than a matter of days. General Comment No. 32 further specifies that the right to promptly access legal representation includes the right for the lawyer to privately communicate with their client and to attend investigations without interference or restrictions. 54. Furthermore, it is noted that under Principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the competent authorities have the duty to ensure that lawyers have access to case files in sufficient time to be able to provide effective legal assistance. The source argues that the right to an effective counsel is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms, enshrined under article 11 of the UDHR. The principle of equality of arms includes the right to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and present one’s defense with their counsel. 55. Accordingly, the source argues that the denial of the right of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil, and Ali to promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their lawyers constitutes a violation of their right to effective assistance of counsel and of the equality of arms principle. Right to family visits 56. The source recalls that the right to communicate with the outside world and be visited by one’s family is a fundamental safeguard against human rights violations, including torture, ill-treatment, and enforced disappearance. 57. Under article 17(2) of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance, individuals detained and imprisoned have the right to communicate and be visited by their families, regardless of the offence they are suspected or accused of. Principle 19 of the Body of Principles specifies that this right may only be subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions that are appropriate to pursue a legitimate aim. 58. In this regard, the source claims that Messrs. Abel Aziz and Sahloob were entirely denied their rights to be visited by their families, while Messrs. Khalil and Ali were only allowed to family visits once a month. The source alleges that these restrictions on family visits were not implemented to pursue a legitimate aim and thereby violate the detainees’ right to communicate with the outside world and receive family visits. Right to be free from torture and ill treatment 59. According to the source, Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil, and Ali were subjected to torture and ill-treatment, especially during the time they were disappeared. Specifically, the source notes that all four detainees were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten, and electrocuted, which caused them severe body pain and health deterioration. The source alleges that the ill-treatment was carried out to coerce them into confessing against themselves. It is observed that, even though they reported such torture, no action was taken by the prosecution or the judges. 60. The source argues that these practices violate the four individuals’ right to be free from torture, ill-treatment, and degrading punishment, under article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Further, the source adds that the United Nations Committee Against Torture specified the absolute nature of this right, which cannot be restricted, including in times of war or states of emergency, and cannot be justified, including by threats of terrorism or other violent crime. The source stresses that the prohibition against torture applies irrespective of the offence alleged. Right to health 61. The source alleges that the lives of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil, and Ali are at grave risk due to the prison authorities’ intentional prevention from accessing medical examination and treatment in prison. 7