33/50 Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - Note by the Secretariat
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2016 Jul
Session: 33rd Regular Session (2016 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.16-11814(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-third session
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Note by the Secretariat
During the period from 1 January to 31 December 2015, the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, under its regular procedure, adopted 56 opinions concerning the
detention of 91 persons in 37 countries. It also transmitted 83 urgent appeals to 42
Governments concerning 241 individuals, as well as 12 letters of allegations to 11
Governments. States informed the Working Group that they had taken measures to remedy
the situation of detainees and in some cases detainees were released. The Working Group is
grateful to those Governments that heeded its appeals and that took steps to provide it with
the requested information on the situation of detainees.
The Working Group engaged in continuous dialogue with countries that it visited, in
particular in respect of its recommendations. In 2015, the Working Group undertook a
follow-up visit to Malta. The report on the visit is contained in an addendum to the present
report (A/HRC/33/50/Add.1).
* Reissued for technical reasons on 9 September 2016.
United Nations A/HRC/33/50*
I. Introduction
1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the Commission on
Human Rights in its resolution 1991/42 and entrusted with the investigation of instances of
alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty, according to the standards set forth in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant international instruments accepted by the
States concerned. The mandate of the Working Group was clarified and extended by the
Commission in its resolution 1997/50 to cover the issue of administrative custody of
asylum seekers and immigrants. At its sixth session, the Human Rights Council assessed
and confirmed the mandate of the Working Group (Council resolution 6/4). On 26
September 2013, in its resolution 24/7, the Council extended the Working Group’s mandate
for a further three-year period.
2. During the period from 1 January to 31 July 2015, the Working Group was
composed of Sètondji Roland Jean-Baptiste Adjovi (Benin), Mads Andenas (Norway), José
Antonio Guevara Bermúdez (Mexico), Seong-Phil Hong (Republic of Korea) and Vladimir
Tochilovsky (Ukraine). On 1 August 2015, Leigh Toomey (Australia) started her functions
as a member of the Working Group, replacing Mr. Andenas.
3. In April 2015, at the seventy-second session of the Working Group, Mr. Hong was
elected as Chair-Rapporteur, Mr. Guevara Bermúdez as Vice-Chair and Mr. Adjovi as
Vice-Chair.
II. Activities of the Working Group in 2015
4. During the period from 1 January to 31 December 2015, the Working Group held its
seventy-second, seventy-third and seventy-fourth sessions. It undertook a follow-up visit to
Malta between 23 and 25 June 2015 (see A/HRC/33/50/Add.1).
A. Handling of communications addressed to the Working Group in 2015
1. Communications transmitted to Governments
5. At its seventy-second, seventy-third and seventy-fourth sessions, the Working
Group adopted a total of 56 opinions concerning 91 persons in 37 countries (see the table
below).
2. Opinions of the Working Group
6. Pursuant to its methods of work (A/HRC/30/69), the Working Group, in addressing
its opinions to Governments, drew their attention to Commission on Human Rights
resolutions 1997/50 and 2003/31 and Human Rights Council resolutions 6/4 and 24/7,
requesting them to take account of the Working Group’s opinions and, where necessary, to
take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty
and to inform the Working Group of the steps they had taken.
Opinions adopted at the seventy-second, seventy-third and seventy-fourth sessions of
the Working Group
Opinion No. State Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion
1/2015 Bolivarian
Republic of
Venezuela
No Vincenzo Scarano Spisso Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
2/2015 Ethiopia/
Yemen
No Andargachew Tsige Detention arbitrary,
categories II, III and
V (Ethiopia);
detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
(Yemen)
3/2015 China Yes Jiaxi Ding Detention arbitrary,
category II
4/2015 Senegal No Karim Wade Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
5/2015 Syrian Arab
Republic
No Bassel Khartabil Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
6/2015 Swaziland No Thulani Rudolf Maseko Detention arbitrary,
Categories II and III
7/2015 Bolivarian
Republic of
Venezuela
No Rosmit Mantilla Detention arbitrary,
categories II, III and
V
8/2015 Australia No Sayed Abdellatif and Ms. A and
their six children: B, C, D, E, F
and G (whose names are known
to the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention)
Detention arbitrary,
category IV
9/2015 Sudan No Amin Mekki Medani, Farouk Abu
Eissa and Farah Ibrahim Mohamed
Alagar
Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
10/2015 Cameroon No Annette Lydienne Yen-Eyoum Detention arbitrary,
category I
11/2015 Republic of
Moldova
No Nikolai Tsipovic Case filed
12/2015 Republic of
Moldova
No Olesya Vedj Case filed
13/2015 Saudi Arabia No Majid Al Nassif Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
14/2015 Egypt Yes A minor (whose name is known
by the Working Group)
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
Opinion No. State Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion
15/2015 Thailand No Yongyuth Boondee Detention arbitrary,
category III
16/2015 Islamic
Republic of
Iran
No Mohammad Reza Pourshajari Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
17/2015 Egypt Yes A minor (whose name is known
by the Working Group)
Detention arbitrary,
category III
18/2015 Mexico Yes Pedro Celestino Canché Herrera Detention arbitrary,
categories II and V
19/2015 Mexico No Librado Jacinto Baños Rodríguez Detention arbitrary,
categories II and V
20/2015 Guinea No Nouhou Thiam, Mohamed Kaba,
Mohamed Condé, Saadou Diallo
and Kémo Condé
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
21/2015 New Zealand No Mr. A (whose name is known to
the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention)
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and V
22/2015 Malaysia No Anwar Ibrahim Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
23/2015 Bahrain No a Sheikh Ahmed Ali al-Salman Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
24/2015 Philippines Yes Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Detention arbitrary,
categories II, III and
V
25/2015 Democratic
Republic of
the Congo
No Emile Bisimwa Muhirhi Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
26/2015 Bolivarian
Republic of
Venezuela
No Gerardo Ernesto Carrero Delgado,
Gerardo Rafael Resplandor
Veracierta, Nixon Alfonzo Leal
Toro, Carlos Pérez y Renzo David
Prieto Ramírez
Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
27/2015 Bolivarian
Republic of
Venezuela
No Antonio José Ledezma Díaz Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II, and
III
28/2015 Kuwait Yes Abdullah Fairouz Abdullah
Abd al-Kareem
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and II
29/2015 Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea
Yes Song Hyeok Kim Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II, III
and V
Opinion No. State Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion
30/2015 Burundi No Frédéric Bamvuginyumvira Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and V
31/2015 Democratic
Republic of
the Congo
No Frédéric Bauma Winga Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
32/2015 Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea
No Hyang-sil Kwon Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
33/2015 Maldives Yes Mohamed Nasheed Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II, III
and V
34/2015 Morocco Yes Rachid Ghribi Laroussi Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
35/2015 United Arab
Emirates
Yes Mahmoud Abdulrahman
al-Jaidah
Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
36/2015 Spain Yes Aránzazu Zulueta Amuchástegui Case filed
37/2015 Democratic
Republic of
the Congo
No Christopher Ngoyi Mutamba Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
38/2015 Saudi Arabia Yes Sheikh Suliaman al-Rashudi,
Abdullah al-Hamid, Mohammed
al-Qahtani, Abdulkareem Yousef
al-Khoder, Mohammed Saleh
al-Bajadi, Omar al-Hamid al-Sa’id,
Raif Badawi, Fadhel al-Manasif,
Waleed Abu al-Khair
Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
39/2015 China No Su Changlan Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
40/2015 Turkmenistan Yes Saparmamed Nepeskuliev Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
41/2015 Bahrain Yes Ali Mahdi Hasan Saeed, Hasan
Mahdi Hasan Saeed, Husain Abdul
Jalil Husain, and Mahmood
Mohamed Ali Mahdi
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
42/2015 Azerbaijan Yes Irina Zakharchenko and Valida
Jabrayilova
Detention arbitrary,
categories II, III and
V
43/2015 Thailand Yes Pornthip Munkong Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
Opinion No. State Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion
44/2015 Islamic
Republic of
Iran
No Jason Rezaian Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
45/2015 Viet Nam No Nguyen Viet Dung Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
46/2015 Viet Nam No Hung Linh Nguyen Detention arbitrary,
category I
47/2015 Angola No José Marcos Mavungo Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
48/2015 Serbia No Djuro Kljaic Case filed
49/2015 Egypt Yes Ahmed Saad Douma Saad,
Ahmed Maher Ibrahim Tantawy
and Mohamed Adel Fahmi
Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
50/2015 The Gambia No. Alhagie Abdoulie Ceesay Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
51/2015 United Arab
Emirates
Yes Salim Alaradi, Kamal Ahmed
Eldarrat, Momed Kamal Eldarrat,
Moad Mohammed al-Hashmi and
Adil Rajab Nasif
Detention arbitrary,
categories I and III
52/2015 Egypt Yes Yara Sallam Detention arbitrary,
categories II and III
53/2015 Egypt Yes Two minors (whose names are
known by the Working Group)
Detention arbitrary,
category III
54/2015 Sweden and
the United
Kingdom of
Great Britain
and Northern
Ireland
Yes (Sweden)
Yes (the United
Kingdom of
Great Britain
and Northern
Ireland)
Julian Assange Detention arbitrary,
category III
55/2015 Mexico No Enrique Guerrero Aviña Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
56/2015 Mexico Yes Nestora Salgado García Detention arbitrary,
categories I, II and III
a The Government of Bahrain responded to the urgent appeal transmitted jointly by several special
procedure mandate holders, including the Working Group, concerning the same subject, but not to the
regular communication. In accordance with paragraph 23 of the Working Group’s methods of work, it
is required that the Government submit separate responses to the urgent appeal and to the
communication.
3. Amendments to the methods of work concerning the review and publication
of opinions
7. At its seventy-fourth session, the Working Group decided to amend its methods of
work. The revised version is contained in document A/HRC/33/66. The following changes
to the methods of work were agreed by the members of the Working Group:
• Paragraph 7 (b) was amended to reflect the adoption in 2015 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela
Rules), a revision of the previous Standard Minimum Rules;
• Paragraph 18 was amended to allow the Working Group to submit its opinion to the
source 48 hours after it has been sent to the Government;
• Paragraph 21 was amended to allow the Working Group to conduct proprio motu a
review of its opinions.
4. Reactions from Governments concerning previous opinions
8. By note verbale dated 22 May 2015, the Government of Australia informed the
Working Group that Sayed Abdellatif, his wife and their children were currently in
immigration detention as unlawful non-citizens (opinion No. 8/2015). The Government
stated that, to date, no durable solution had been found.
9. By note verbale dated 29 May 2015, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
informed the Working Group that the detention of Mohammad Reza Pourshajari (opinion
No. 16/2015) was in compliance with the applicable domestic law.
10. By note verbale dated 11 June 2015, the Government of the Republic of Moldova
submitted that in the cases of Nikolai Tsipovic and Olesya Vedj (opinions No. 11/2015 and
No. 12/2015) the investigative bodies had been operating in accordance with national and
international legislation, respecting the principle of proportionality and the guarantees of
the European Court of Human Rights.
11. By note verbale dated 21 October 2015, the Government of Burundi informed the
Working Group that the initial communication regarding the case of Frédéric
Bamvuginyumvira sent to the Government on 9 June 2015 (opinion No. 30/2015) had not
been received by the Permanent Mission of Burundi to the United Nations Office and other
international organizations in Geneva.
12. By note verbale dated 16 November 2015, the Government of Malaysia informed
the Working Group that, in the case of Anwar Ibrahim (opinion No. 22/2015) there was no
valid ground that warranted his immediate release as recommended by the Working Group.
13. By note verbale dated 29 October 2015, the Government of Turkmenistan provided
its comments on the situation of Arslannazar Nazarov and Bairamklich Khadzhiorazov
(opinion No. 40/2014), stating that there were no grounds to cancel or reconsider their
sentences of 15 years of imprisonment handed down by the court in its lawfully issued
verdict of 24 September 2014.
14. By note verbale dated 29 September 2015, the Government of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela expressed concern that, in the case concerning Antonio José
Ledezma Díaz (opinion No. 27/2015), the Working Group had not considered the
Government’s reply to a previous urgent appeal sent on 27 March 2015 (VEN 3/2015).
15. By note verbale dated 18 December 2015, the Government of Angola provided a
late response on the case concerning José Marcos Mavungo (opinion No. 47/2015).
16. By note verbale dated 7 December 2015, the Government of Mexico submitted a
late response on the case concerning Enrique Guerrero Aviña (opinion No. 55/2015).
17. By note verbale, received on 9 December 2015, the Permanent Mission of China to
the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva submitted a late
response on the case concerning Su Changlan (opinion No. 39/2015).
5. Release of subjects of the Working Group’s opinions
18. The Working Group received the following information from Governments and/or
sources on the release of subjects of its opinions:
(a) On 1 July 2015, the Working Group was informed that Thulani Rudolf
Maseko’s appeal had been successful and that he had been unconditionally released on 30
June 2015 (opinion No. 6/2015 (Swaziland));
(b) By note verbale dated 30 July 2015, the Government of Mexico informed the
Working Group that on 28 May 2015, the second collegiate tribunal of the Twenty-seventh
District of Quintana Roo had ruled in favour of Pedro Celestino Canché Herrera and that he
had been released on the following day (opinion No. 18/2015);
(c) By note verbale dated 2 November 2015, the Government of the United Arab
Emirates informed the Working Group that Mahmoud Abdulrahman al-Jaidah had been
released in May 2015 (opinion No. 35/2015);
(d) The Working Group was informed that Wael Aly Ahmed Aly had been
released on December 2012 following a decision on his appeal (opinion No. 1/2012
(Egypt));
(e) On 20 November 2015, the Working Group was informed that Abdelmageed
Meshali had been released on 22 April 2015; Khaled El-Kazza had been released
previously, on 12 January 2015 (opinion No. 39/2013 (Egypt));
(f) On 20 November 2015, the Working Group was informed that Issam
Mahamed Tahar Al Barquaoui Al Uteibi had been released after serving his sentence
(opinions No. 18/2007 and No. 60/2011 (Jordan));
(g) The Working Group was informed that three subjects of its opinion No.
53/2013 (Jordan) had been released;
(h) The Working Group was informed that the subjects of opinions No. 37/2008,
No. 2/2011, No. 45/2011 and No. 18/2014 (Saudi Arabia) had been released. In addition, in
regard to opinion No. 25/2004 (Saudi Arabia), the Working Group was only recently
informed that on 11 January 2009 Matrouk b. Hais b. Khalif Al-Faleh had been released;
(i) The Working Group was informed that the subjects of opinions No. 9/2008,
No. 40/2008, No. 13/2009, No. 17/2010 and No. 19/2012 (Yemen) had been released. With
regard to opinion No. 5/2011 (Yemen), the Working Group only learned recently that
Osama Mohsen Hussein Al Saadi had been released on 11 September 2010;
(j) The Working Group was informed that Nikola Milat had been released
(opinion No. 14/2010 (United Arab Emirates));
(k) The Working Group was informed that Paul Eric Kingue had been released
on 21 May 2015 (opinion No. 38/2014 (Cameroon));
(l) The Working Group was informed that Mazen Darwish had been released on
10 August 2015 (opinion No. 43/2013 (Syrian Arab Republic));
(m) The Working Group was informed that Mary Ta Phong Tan had been
released on 19 September 2015 (opinion No. 26/2013 (Viet Nam));
(n) The Working Group was informed that Yara Sallam had been released on 23
September 2015 (opinion No. 52/2015 (Egypt)).
19. The Working Group expresses its gratitude to those Governments that undertook
positive actions and released detainees that were subjects of its opinions. However, it also
expresses regret that some Member States have not fully cooperated in enforcing the
opinions.
6. Requests for review of opinions adopted
20. The Working Group considered requests for review of the following opinions:
(a) Opinion No. 10/2014 (Egypt), concerning Mohamed Essayed Ali Rasslan,
Mohamed Mohamed Abdo Abdullah, Ahmed Hussein Ali, Ahmed Mohamed Tohamy,
Motaz Ahmed Motwali, Mohamed Mohamed Abduh, Assayed Mohamed Ezzat Ahmed,
Assayed Saber Ahmed Suleiman, Ahmed Hassan Fawaz Atta, Mohamed Abdel Hamid
Abdel Fattah Abdel Hamid, Sayyed Ali Abdel Zaher and Mahmoud Abdel Fattah Abbas;
(b) Opinion No. 15/2014 (Canada), concerning Michael Mvogo;
(c) Opinion No. 4/2015 (Senegal), concerning Karim Wade;
(d) Opinion No. 5/2015 (Syrian Arab Republic), concerning Bassel Khartabil;
(e) Opinion No. 24/2015 (Philippines), concerning Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
(f) Opinion No. 33/2015 (Maldives), concerning Mohamed Nasheed.
21. After carefully and closely examining the requests for review, the Working Group
decided to maintain its opinions on the basis that none of the requests met criteria outlined
in paragraph 21 of its methods of work.
7. Reprisal against a subject of an opinion of the Working Group
22. The Working Group remains concerned regarding the continued detention under
house arrest of María Lourdes Afiuni Mora, the subject of opinion No. 20/2010, who was
arrested in 2009 for ordering the conditional release of Eligio Cedeño, the subject of the
Working Group’s opinion No. 10/2009. The Working Group considers the detention of Ms.
Afiuni as a measure of reprisal. It is also concerned at claims that Ms. Afiuni was subjected
to ill-treatment and sexual assault during her detention and that those claims were not
promptly investigated. It reiterates its calls to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to immediately release Ms. Afiuni and to provide her with effective and
adequate reparations.
8. Urgent appeals
23. During the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015, the Working Group
sent 83 urgent appeals to 42 Governments concerning 241 individuals. The list of countries
concerned and the number of urgent appeals transmitted to each is as follows:
Angola 1
Azerbaijan 2
Bahrain 5
Bangladesh 1
Burundi 2
Cambodia 1
China 4
Cuba 2
Democratic Republic of the Congo 1
Egypt 6
Gambia 1
India 1
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 7
Iraq 1
Israel 2
Kazakhstan 2
Kenya 1
Kuwait 1
Kyrgyzstan 1
Lebanon 1
Lesotho 1
Mauritania 1
Mexico 5
Morocco 1
Myanmar 3
Oman 1
Panama 1
Qatar 1
Republic of Korea 1
Saudi Arabia 4
South Sudan 1
Sudan 3
Swaziland 1
Syrian Arab Republic 1
Tajikistan 1
Thailand 1
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1
Turkey 2
United Arab Emirates 3
Ukraine 1
Uzbekistan 2
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 5
24. The full text of the urgent appeals can be consulted in the joint communications
reports of the special procedure mandate holders.1
25. In conformity with paragraphs 22 to 24 of its methods of work, the Working Group,
without prejudging whether a detention was arbitrary, drew the attention of each of the
Governments concerned to the specific case as reported, and appealed to them to take the
measures necessary to ensure that the detained persons’ rights to life and to physical
integrity were respected.
26. When an appeal made reference to the critical state of health of certain persons or to
particular circumstances, such as failure to execute a court order for release or a previous
opinion seeking the release of the person, the Working Group requested the Government
concerned to take all measures necessary for the immediate release of the person. In
accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/2, the Working Group integrated into
its methods of work the prescriptions of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures
Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council relating to urgent appeals and has since
applied them.
27. During the period under review, the Working Group also sent 12 letters of allegation
and other letters to France, the Gambia, Italy, Morocco, Pakistan (2), Portugal, Senegal, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United States of
America.
28. The Working Group wishes to thank those Governments that heeded its appeals and
that took steps to provide it with information on the situation of the persons concerned,
especially the Governments that released those persons.
B. Country visits
1. Requests for visits
29. The Working Group has been invited to visit Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Latvia,
Poland, the Republic of Korea, Rwanda and the United States, as well as the State of
Palestine.
30. During the interactive dialogue held at the thirtieth session of the Human Rights
Council, a representative of the Permanent Mission of Mauritania to the United Nations
Office and other international organizations in Geneva expressed the interest of the
Government in a follow-up visit to the country and invited the Working Group to suggest
dates.
31. On 11 September 2015, the Government of Azerbaijan confirmed the dates for the
visit of the Working Group, which took place from 16 to 25 May 2016. Findings from the
visit will be duly covered in the next annual report.
32. On 15 September 2015, the Government of Kazakhstan invited the Working Group
to undertake an official visit from 12 to 23 October 2015. Regrettably, the members of the
Working Group could not accommodate those dates, and suggested, in a letter dated 24
September 2015, new dates in July 2016. The Government has not yet responded to the
suggestion or made alternative proposals.
33. On 5 March 2015, in its response to the invitation from the Government of the State
of Palestine, the Working Group informed the Government that it would continue its
1 For communications reports of the special procedures, see
www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.
strategic dialogue with all parties concerned. On 17 April 2015, the Working Group
requested Israel to receive a country visit from the Working Group. By note verbale dated
22 July 2015, the Government declined the request. On 14 September 2015, during the
interactive dialogue held at the thirtieth session of the Human Rights Council, the
delegation of the State of Palestine reiterated its invitation to the Working Group to
undertake a country visit at any suitable time.
34. On 4 December 2015, the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the
United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva notified the Working
Group of the acceptance by the United States authorities of the Working Group’s request
for a preliminary visit to the United States and of its willingness to facilitate such a visit in
April 2016.
35. In December 2015, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United
Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva proposed that the Working
Group’s country visit take place in the second half of 2016.
36. The Working Group also made requests to visit Algeria (3 March 2015), Argentina
(24 February 2015), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (17 April 2015), Ethiopia
(5 March 2015), Guatemala (10 March 2015), Japan (15 April 2015), Kenya (6 March
2015), Nauru (24 February 2015), Rwanda (19 March 2015), Singapore (9 March 2015),
Uganda (6 March 2015), the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (19 March 2015) and Viet
Nam (15 April 2015). The Working Group has sent requests for follow-up visits to China
(15 April 2015), Indonesia (15 April 2015), Malaysia (15 April 2015), Malta (26 February
2015) and Mexico (15 April 2015).
2. Responses of Governments to requests for invitations for country visits
37. In a note verbale dated 23 June 2015, the Government of Viet Nam informed the
Working Group that the authorities had taken note of its request and would consider
sending an invitation for a country visit at an appropriate time.
38. In a note verbale dated 26 June 2015, the Government of Japan referred to
provisions in its penal law that would apparently prevent the Working Group from holding
confidential meetings and interviews with detainees. However, during a meeting at the
offices of the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office and other
international organizations in Geneva, the Working Group was able to further explain its
terms of reference, which are consistent with the best practices in the field. It is still
awaiting a further response from the Government.
39. By note verbale dated 2 April 2015, the Government of Nauru declined the Working
Group’s request to conduct a country visit between May and June 2015, but indicated that it
would be pleased to discuss the possibility of such a visit taking place at a later date.
40. On 7 May 2015, the Government of Kenya responded to the Working Group’s
request for an invitation, suggesting that the Working Group identify the dates for the visit.
On 2 July 2015, the Working Group transmitted a letter to the Government requesting that
the visit take place in the last quarter of 2015. The Government has not yet responded.
41. On 17 August 2015, the Government of Rwanda declined the visit proposed for
2015 but indicated that it would be pleased to discuss the possibility of such a visit taking
place in 2016. The Working Group responded by proposing that the visit take place in 2017
or 2018. The Government has not yet responded.
42. During a meeting on 31 August 2015, the Governments of Latvia, Myanmar and
Poland indicated that they would be pleased to look into the possibility of discussing visits
in 2016.
3. Follow-up to country visits
43. During the reporting period, the Working Group conducted a follow-up visit to
Malta from 23 to 25 June 2015 at the invitation of the Government. Throughout the visit,
the Working Group enjoyed the fullest cooperation of the Government and was able to hold
confidential interviews with prisoners and detainees in Corradino Correctional Facility, the
main prison in the country; the Young Offenders Unit Rehabilitation Services; the Safi
detention centre in Safi Barracks; Hal Far open centre; the Forensic Unit at the Mount
Carmel Hospital and the newly established initial reception centre for children. Detailed
information about the visit is provided in an addendum to the present report
(A/HRC/33/50/Add.1).
44. In 2014, the Working Group requested information from the Government of El
Salvador, which it had visited in 2012. On 19 May 2015, the Government provided detailed
information about the measures it had taken to follow up on the recommendations made by
the Working Group. This information is included in an addendum to the report. The
Working Group would like to thank the Government of El Salvador for the information
received and will send it a comprehensive response.
III. Conclusions
45. With respect to the activities of the Working Group, 2015 has been a
productive year. The Working Group has renewed its composition, with one new
member appointed in 2015 in addition to the three members appointed in 2014; the
terms of all four new members have already been extended to 2020. This has created a
special dynamic within the Working Group, which has translated into specific action.
46. First, the Working Group has conducted a thorough assessment of its
procedure and made some changes in its methods of work. Some changes did not
warrant any amendment of the methods of work, representing instead improvements
to internal procedures. For instance, the Working Group has decided to make better
use of its digital tools to allow better access to the materials for the session. This has
led to the members of the Working Group working more during the intersessional
periods. The Working Group has also been working to streamline the process for
receipt of and response to communications, always keeping in mind the need to work
as effectively and promptly as possible and to keep all parties informed.
47. Second, the Working Group has decided to embark on the design of a business
plan to better alert the Member States about its workload and commitments while
identifying the resources needed for success. Member States will be provided with
appropriate information in the near future when the plan is finalized.
48. Third, the new dynamic has already translated into more opinions being issued
each session. The Working Group plans to increase further its productivity if
resources permit. This will certainly serve the need and uphold the trust of victims,
who are increasingly seeking the assistance of the Working Group to remedy
violations of their right to liberty.
49. Finally, the Working Group has decided to propose the establishment of an
international day against arbitrary detention. Such a day would allow everyone to
remember the victims of arbitrary detention, but would also be a day of celebration
for those victims who have been released and who are often forgotten. Furthermore, it
would be a day of worldwide mobilization against arbitrary detention. Having
reviewed the current list of international days, the Working Group noticed that 5
March — the day the Working Group was created by the Commission for Human
Rights — is available and could therefore be proposed.
50. It is unfortunate that these positive developments are met with a less than
enthusiastic response from the Member States. For example, Member States did not
reply to the Working Group’s communications and requests for information in 59 per
cent of the cases that in which the Working Group adopted an opinion in 2015. Recent
communications reports of the special procedure mandate holders reveal a similar
rate of response to urgent appeals sent by the Working Group alone or with other
special procedure mandate holders. Such lack of responsiveness raises a question
about the aim the Member States were pursuing in creating the mechanism. While
one must assume that the decision was made to serve the needs of victims worldwide
and for the Member States to hold each other accountable, the sole logical deduction
is that the States intended the mechanism to resolve the dispute brought by the
victims. Thus, the settlement by the Working Group should be enforced in that same
spirit, and that is the expectation of victims when they approach the Working Group
for assistance. That is also the meaning underlying the constant reminder of the
Human Rights Council for States to fully cooperate with the Working Group. It is
therefore fair to conclude the present report on the expectation that the next report of
the Working Group will reflect further cooperation by the States, both during the
communications procedure, in terms of providing timely responses that meaningfully
speak to the allegations made, and in the enforcement of the decisions made by the
Working Group.
IV. Recommendations
51. The Working Group reiterates the recommendations made in its past reports.
52. The Working Group recommends that Member States increase their
cooperation, especially with respect to country visits, urgent appeals and
communications, and the enforcement of Working Group opinions, with a view to
preventing and/or ending arbitrary detention.
53. The Working Group also recommends that the Human Rights Council request
the General Assembly to declare 5 March as the international day against arbitrary
detention.