A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79 accordance with its official policy, and to think and manifest personal convictions at odds with its official ideology, under the peremptory norms of customary international law. 27 79. The Human Rights Committee has stated that restrictions on freedom of expression must not be overbroad and must conform to the principle of proportionality, be appropriate to achieve their protective function, be the least intrusive instrument among those that might achieve their protective function and be proportionate to the interest to be protected.28 It is worth noting that the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high in the circumstances of public debate in a democratic society concerning figures in the public and political domain. 80. Furthermore, article 25 of the Covenant states that every citizen is to have the right and the opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections. According to the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 25 (1996), the conduct of public affairs relates to the exercise of political power, in particular the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers. 29 81. Consequently, the Working Group is of the opinion that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. El-Elaimy and Ms. Abdelhalim, being motivated by the Government’s intention to prevent freedom of expression and the right to participate in public affairs, protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant, falls under category II violations. Category III 82. With regard to the detention of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy being arbitrary under category III, the source submits that the two have been denied their right to a fair trial and due process guarantees. In particular, the source notes that Mr. El-Elaimy’s right to promptly have recourse to effective legal counsel has been totally denied by the authorities. Both have been completely prevented from communicating with their lawyers during their detention and were not tried before impartial and independent tribunals. Family visitation was severely restricted in the case of Mr. El-Elaimy, and Ms. Abdelhalim was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment during her enforced disappearance. As has been noted, these allegations have not been rebutted by the Government. 83. Given its findings that the detention of Ms. Abdelhalim and Mr. El-Elaimy is arbitrary under category I, the Working Group considers that there was total or partial non-observance of the international norms associated with the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant international instruments to which the States concerned are a party. 84. In addition, and in relation to the right to counsel, the source alleges that Mr. ElElaimy was denied his right to contact or meet with his lawyer, as the lawyer has not been allowed to visit him in prison. His lawyer has not been permitted to have access to copies of the arrest record, the record of the investigations carried out by the Security Services, the charges or official legal documents pertaining to Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases. 85. As the Working Group has stated, principle 9 and guideline 8 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice, at any time during their detention, including immediately after apprehension, and must be promptly informed of this right upon apprehension. Access to legal counsel should not be unlawfully or unreasonably restricted.30 86. A detainee should also have access to effective counsel, which, according to principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, means that it is the duty of the competent authorities to ensure lawyers access to appropriate information, files and documents in their 27 28 29 30 Opinions No. 94/2017, para. 59; No. 88/2017, para. 32; No. 83/2017, para. 80; and No. 76/2017, para. 62. General comment No. 34 (2011). Para. 5 A/HRC/30/37, annex, paras. 12–15 and 67–71. 11