Advance unedited version A/HRC/WGAD/2022/ Enforced Disappearance 43. The source recalls that the prohibition of enforced disappearance is non-derogable, even in a state of emergency. The source claims that Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Ali were forcibly disappeared for one month and four months respectively, while Mr. Sahloob and Mr. Khalil were forcibly disappeared for two weeks and one week respectively. 44. According to the source, the enforced disappearances of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali constitute a violation of articles 17 and 18 of the Convention on Enforced disappearance, which state that detention should only be carried out in officially recognized locations and that States must ensure that no one is detained secretly and that the detainee’s family and lawyer are provided with accurate information about the detention. Prolonged Arbitrary Detention 45. The source argues that Mr. Sahloob’s detention is arbitrary in that it is void of legal basis and political in nature. It is alleged that Mr. Sahloob’s detention is part of a systematic pattern whereby the Egyptian authorities detain political prisoners in multiple separate cases to ensure that they remain in pretrial detention. 46. The source reports that Mr. Sahloob was not released even though he completed his three-year sentence in the first case. Instead, he was detained again, pending investigation in the second case, which reportedly deals with an incident that occurred months after Mr. Sahloob’s detention, while he was in detention. Accordingly, the source concludes that Mr. Sahloob was detained for political ends, in violation of his right to liberty protected under article 9 of the UDHR and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 47. For the abovementioned reasons, the source concludes that the detention of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali is arbitrary under category I. Category III 48. The source argues that the detention of Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil and Ali is arbitrary in so far as Messrs Abdel Aziz and Ali were both tried before a military court, all four individuals were denied access to effective legal counsel and subjected to torture and illtreatment, their right to health was violated, and they were either partly or entirely denied family visits. Right to a fair trial by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal 49. The source denounces that referring civilians to trial before military courts for nonmilitary related crimes has become a norm in Egypt to deter the political opposition. The source argues that this constitutes a violation of article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. 50. In this regard, the source underlines that the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary protects individuals’ right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. These principles add that tribunals not using duly established procedures should not displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts or tribunals. Further, it is noted that article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the “African Charter”), which the source recalls has been ratified by Egypt, requires states to guarantee courts’ independence. 51. The source claims that Mr. Abdel Aziz and Mr. Ali were tried before a military court even though they were both civilians, contrary to their right to a fair trial, before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. Right to access an effective legal counsel 52. According to the source, Messrs. Abdel Aziz, Sahloob, Khalil, and Ali were denied the right to promptly seek legal representation and communicate with their lawyers in detention. 6