A/HRC/WGAD/2021/79 possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time. The effectiveness of legal counsel is related to the principle of equality of arms, as enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which draws on the right of detainees to be given the time and facilities necessary to prepare and present their defence, with legal counsel, at the trial. 87. In the view of the Working Group, the Government failed to respect Mr. El-Elaimy’s right to legal assistance at all times. The Working Group emphasizes that legal assistance should be available at all stages of criminal proceedings, namely, during pretrial, trial, retrial and appellate stages, to ensure compliance with fair trial guarantees. Any denial of access to lawyers is therefore a breach of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. This violation substantially undermined and compromised Mr. El-Elaimy’s capacity to defend himself in the judicial proceedings. 88. The Working Group notes the denial of Mr. El-Elaimy’s right to be visited by his family, contrary to principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and rules 43 (3) and 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Giving regular access to family members, as well as lawyers, is an essential and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture, as well as protection against arbitrary detention and infringement of personal security. 31 Principle 15 of the Body of Principles provides that communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world, and in particular his or her family or counsel, is not to be denied for more than a matter of days. 89. Regarding trial by special courts, the Working Group notes that special courts may not be created to displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. 32 They should not examine offences that fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In addition, when special courts exist, they must be independent and impartial and respect fair trial standards.33 All courts, whether regular or special, must be competent, independent and impartial. 34 The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 13 (1984) regarding the rights contained in article 14 of the Covenant, raised concerns about the nature of military or special courts, stating that quite often the reason for the establishment of such courts was to enable exceptional procedures to be applied that did not comply with normal standards of justice. 90. The source claims that the Supreme State Security Prosecution is a special branch of the Public Prosecution that has more powers when it comes to detaining suspects. When indicted, defendants are referred to one of three categories of special courts: emergency State security courts, terrorism circuits or military courts. The Working Group agrees that special courts should not examine offences that fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. 91. The source claims that Ms. Abdelhalim’s and Mr. El-Elaimy’s cases have been investigated by the Supreme State Security Prosecution. This is a form of special prosecution that refers cases to special security-related courts, where standards of fair trial, regard for evidence and due process have been violated to allow injustices, through which the Government allegedly aims to intimidate its opponents and prevent them from enjoying their freedoms and rights. 92. Ms. Abdelhalim was under enforced disappearance for five days at the national security premises in Shubra Al-Khaimah, during which time she was allegedly kept in a dark room and continuously threated with being beaten and electrocuted and subjected to forms 31 32 33 34 12 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 74; No. 30/2018, para. 47; No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 39/2018, para. 41; No. 47/2018, para. 71; No. 22/2019, para. 71; No. 36/2019, para. 56; No. 44/2019, paras. 74–75; No. 45/2019, para. 76; No. 56/2019, para. 83; No. 65/2019, para. 68; No. 6/2020, para. 54; No. 11/2020, para. 54; No. 31/2020, para. 51; No. 32/2020, para. 59; No. 33/2020, para. 87; and No. 34/2020, para. 57. Principle 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; and sections A (4) (e) and L (c) of Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. Commission on Human Rights, resolution 2005/30. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and article 14 of the Covenant.