Annual report: alternatives to pre-trial detention

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1991/42. It was entrusted with the investigation of cases 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. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the Commission. The mandate of the Working Group was extended for a three-year period in Council resolution 51/8 of 6 October 2022.

During the period from 1 January to 31 December 2024, the Working Group was composed of Miriam Estrada-Castillo (Ecuador), Matthew Gillett (New Zealand), Priya Gopalan (Malaysia), Mumba Malila (Zambia) and Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine).

From April 2023 to March 2024, Ms. Gopalan served as Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group, Mr. Gillett as Vice-Chair on communications and Ms. Yudkivska as Vice-Chair on follow-up. At the ninety-ninth session of the Working Group, in March 2024, Mr. Gillett was elected as Chair-Rapporteur, Ms. Yudkivska was elected as Vice-Chair on communications and Ms. Gopalan was elected as Vice-Chair on follow-up.

During the period from 1 January to 31 December 2024, the Working Group held its 99th, 100th and 101st sessions.

The Working Group conducted a country visit to Canada from 13 to 24 May 2024.¹

1. A/HRC/60/26/Add.1. ↩

In order to facilitate outreach and information-sharing, the Working Group met with non-governmental organizations during its 101st session to gather information on issues related to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to enhance civil society’s understanding of the Working Group’s methods of work² and its operations.

2. A/HRC/36/38. ↩

On 14 November 2024, the Working Group co-hosted, with the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, an event commemorating its 100th session. The event, entitled “Arbitrary detention and the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination”, presented an opportunity to reflect upon the evolution of the Working Group’s jurisprudence related to detention on discriminatory grounds and on emerging trends and challenges. A variety of stakeholders, including Member States, non-governmental organizations and civil society representatives, participated in the event and contributed to the discussions. Testimonies were also heard from victims of arbitrary detention.

Communications transmitted to Governments

At its 99th, 100th and 101st sessions, the Working Group adopted 71 opinions concerning 149 persons in 41 countries (see table below).

Pursuant to its methods of work, in addressing its opinions to Governments, the Working Group drew their attention to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1997/50 and 2003/31 and Human Rights Council resolutions 6/4, 24/7, 42/22 and 51/8, in which those bodies requested States to take account of the Working Group’s opinions and, where 1 A/HRC/60/26/Add.1. 2 A/HRC/36/38. GE.25-10957 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 that they had taken. Upon the expiry of a 48-hour deadline following transmission of the opinions to the Governments concerned, the opinions were transmitted to the relevant sources. GE.25-10957 Opinions adopted at 99th, 100th and 101st sessions of the Working Group Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 1/2024 Equatorial Guinea No Peter Shane Huxham and Frederik Johannes Potgieter Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Messrs. Huxham and Potgieter were retried on 23 April 2025 following an order from the Supreme Court and found guilty. They were pardoned and released in June 2025. (Information from the source) 2/2024 China No Alavedi Buvacir, Hudavedi Bumeyrem, Abudukelimu Alimu, Abuduli Aibibu and Bahaguli Aibibu Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. All individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) 3/2024 Belarus No Aleksandr Bialiatski Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 4/2024 China No Abdülcabbar Celil Karluk, Suliya Tuerxun, Ailijiang Mamuti and Yasin Abdurrahman Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Messrs. Karluk, Mamuti and Abdurrahman remain in detention. (Information from the source) 5/2024 Belarus No (late) Artsiom Zharnak Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Zharnak was released on 5 May 2025 upon completion of his sentence. He remains on the national “terrorist” list, which subjects him to restrictions, including the inability to carry out financial transactions, buy or sell property, or enter into civil or notarial agreements. (Information from the source) 6/2024 Türkiye Yes Meryem Tekin Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Tekin was released in 2024. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 7/2024 Guatemala Yes José Rubén Zamora Marroquín Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V On 18 October 2024, the Ninth Criminal Court in Guatemala replaced Mr. Zamora’s pretrial detention with house arrest, a travel ban, a ban on contact with other suspects and weekly check-ins with the authorities. The Government is taking steps towards adopting a public policy for the protection of human rights defenders. (Information from the Government) Mr. Zamora was granted house arrest on 18 October 2024 but ordered by a judge to return to prison on 4 March 2025. The Government has taken no action to implement the opinion. (Information from the source) 8/2024 Egypt No (late) Moaaz Nagah Mansour Mansour el-Sharqaoui Detention arbitrary, categories I and III None 9/2024 Nigeria No Mubarak Bala Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 10/2024 Saudi Arabia Yes Muhammad al-Ghamdi Detention arbitrary, categories II and III Mr. Al-Ghamdi was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. He is appealing his conviction before the Supreme Court. (Information from the Government) 11/2024 Russian Federation No Evan Gershkovich Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Gershkovich was released on 1 August 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange. (Information from the source) 12/2024 Qatar No Abdullah Ibhais Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III Mr. Ibhais was released on 11 March 2025 and deported the same day. He has not received any reparation. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 13/2024 Cuba No (late) Ángel Serrano Hernández, Carlos Paul Michelena Valdés, Denis Ojeda Álvarez, Felipe Almirall, Fredy Beirut Matos, Katia Beirut Rodríguez, Luis Frómeta Compte, Odet Hernández Cruzata, Oscar Luis Ortiz Arrovsmeth, Reynier Reinosa Cabrera, Robert Orlando Cairo Díaz, Roberto Pérez Ortega, Rolando Vázquez Fleita, Walnier Luis Aguilar Rivera, Wilmer Moreno Suárez, Yerandis Rillos Pao and Yoandry Reinier Sayu Silva Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Ms. Beirut Rodríguez and Ms. Hernández Cruzata, and Messrs. Beirut Matos and Frómeta Compte were conditionally released in January 2025. Mr. Sayu Silva was allowed extrapenal leave in January 2025. They remain subject, notably, to: a travel ban, bans on using social media, issuing public statements and communicating with human rights organizations, and prohibitions on human rights advocacy and criticism of the Government. The other individuals who were the subject of the opinion remain in detention. (Information from the source) 14/2024 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Carlos Alejandro Seco Almeida, Félix Abimael Dager Sifontes, Briceidys Javierlys González Camacho and César Augusto Itriago Rebolledo Detention arbitrary, category I No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. All four individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) 15/2024 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Oreste Alfredo Schiavo Lavieri Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Schiavo Lavieri was released on 3 May 2025 on humanitarian grounds. (Information from the source) 16/2024 Bahrain Yes Muntadhar Abdali Mohamed Khatam, Murtadha Abdali Mohamed Khatam and Mohamed Abdali Mohamed Hasan Khatam Detention arbitrary, categories I and III All three individuals were released on 8 April 2024 through a royal pardon. (Information from the Government and the source) They have not received any compensation or reparations. (Information from the source) 17/2024 Egypt Yes Salwa Hassan Salem Ali Detention arbitrary, categories I and III None GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 18/2024 Tajikistan Yes Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva and Sorbon Yunoev Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev remain in detention. (Information from the source) 19/2024 Tajikistan Yes Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Messrs. Irgashov, Mamadshoev and Kholiknazarov are lawfully detained. Their detention is not arbitrary. (Information from the Government) No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. All three individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) 20/2024 Egypt No Mohamed Mahmoud Marghany Mahmoud Mubarak Detention arbitrary, categories I and III None 21/2024 Benin Noa Frédéric Joël Aïvo Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Aïvo remains in detention. (Information from the source) 22/2024 Pakistan No Imran Ahman Khan Niazi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III Mr. Khan is serving his sentence imposed by the courts of law. He remains at liberty to contest the cases against him without any hindrance or prejudice. His cases remain sub judice. (Information from the Government) 23/2024 Australia No (late) Mr. A, whose name is known to the Working Group Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, IV and V Mr. A was granted a Bridging (Removal Pending) visa R (subclass 070) on 17 November 2023 and released from immigration detention. He currently resides in the community. (Information from the Government) Mr. A was released, having been assessed as being affected by the decision of the High Court of Australia in the matter of NZYQ v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Order, 8 November 2023. No compensation or other reparations have been made to him. No investigation was conducted into the violation of his rights. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 24/2024 Algeria Yes Mustapha Bendjama and Raouf Farrah Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III Mr. Farrah was released on 26 October 2023 and Mr. Bendjama on 18 April 2024, after completing their sentences. They were ineligible for compensation and have not filed any complaints about violations of their rights. National laws comply with international obligations. (Information from the Government) Although Mr. Bendjama was released on 18 April 2024, a 16-month suspended sentence remained in effect. On 12 December 2024, the Court of Cassation rejected his appeal against one of the convictions. He was arrested again on 30 December 2024 on charges of publicizing information likely to harm national interests and disseminating, through social media, biased information likely to undermine public security and public order. His trial was scheduled to begin on 29 June 2025. (Information from the source) 25/2024 Rwanda Yes Hamad Hagenimana, Emmanuel Masengesho, Alphonse Mutabazi, Marcel Nahimana, Jean Claude Ndayishimiye, Theoneste Nsengimana, Alexis Rucubanganya, Sylvain Sibomana and Claudine Uwimana Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V All nine individuals remain in detention. Their trial began on 5 December 2024. (Information from the source) 26/2024 Saudi Arabia Yes Saud bin Mohammed bin Ali al-Faraj Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Al-Faraj remains in detention. His case is currently under judicial consideration following a retrial. (Information from the Government) Mr. Al-Faraj was retried by the Specialized Criminal Court on 5 March 2025 and re-sentenced to death. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 27/2024 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Marco Antonio Garcés Carapaica Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Carapaica was released on 18 October 2023. Criminal proceedings against him are ongoing and he is listed as a “wanted person” in the Police Information System. No action taken by the Government to implement the other recommendations in the opinion. (Information form the source) 28/2024 Thailand No (late) Arnon Nampa Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Nampa has been convicted on further charges, accumulating a total prison sentence of 24 years, 1 month and 20 days. He remains in detention. (Information from the source) 29/2024 Algeria Yes Mohamed Riahi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Any request for reparation would be premature as appellate proceedings are ongoing. No investigation has been carried out and allegations that Mr. Riahi’s rights were violated by officers of the judicial police are unfounded. National laws comply with international obligations. (Information from the Government) Mr. Riahi was released on 29 May 2024 after completing his sentence. No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. (Information from the source) 30/2024 Nicaragua No Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel and Dionisio Robins Zacarías Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 31/2024 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Argelia Margarita Infante Nares and Yoeimer Alexair Hurtado Infante Detention arbitrary, categories I and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante remain in detention. (Information from the source) 32/2024 Nigeria No Yahaya Sharif-Aminu Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Sharif-Aminu remains in detention. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 33/2024 Türkiye No (late) Akin Öztürk Detention arbitrary, categories I and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Öztürk remains in detention. (Information from the source) 34/2024 Hong Kong, China Nob Jimmy Lai Chee-ying Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the government to implement the opinion. Mr. Lai remains in detention. (Information from the source) 35/2024 Tunisia No Mohamad Khayam ben Ibrahim ben Mustafa al Turki, Chaima bent Issa ben Ibrahim ben Hoagui Issa, Abdelhamid ben Abdelkader ben Mohamad al Jelassi, Issam ben Abdelaziz ben Ahmed al Chebbi, Ghazi ben Mohamad ben al Hadi al Chaouachi, Ridha ben al Bachir ben Mohamad Belhaj, Jaouhar ben Ezzedine ben Mohamed al Habib ben M’barek and Mohamad Lazher al Akremi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III The individuals were convicted on 18 April 2025 and are serving their sentences. (Information from the Government) The trial of the eight individuals opened on 4 March 2025. During the proceedings, Messrs. Al Turki, Al Jelassi, Al Chebbi, Al Chaouachi, Belhaj and Ben M’barek remained in pretrial detention, while Ms. Issa and Mr. Al Akremi stood trial after being granted provisional release on 13 July 2023. Mr. Al Turki was sentenced to 48 years in prison. Messrs. Al Chaouachi, Al Chebbi, Ben M’barek and Belhaj and Ms. Issa were each sentenced to 18 years in prison. Mr. Al Jelassi was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Mr. Al Akremi was sentenced to 8 years in prison. (Information from the source) 36/2024 Madagascar No (late) Paul Maillot Detention arbitrary, categories I and III None 37/2024 China and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea No (late) Kim Cheol-Ok Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Governments to implement the opinion. Ms. Kim remains in detention. (Information from the source) 38/2024 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Niurka Mariana Mota Belisario, Leonardo Javier Fernández Estanga, Pedro Domingo Díaz Díaz and Jean Pierre Pages Evans Detention arbitrary, category I and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. All four individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 39/2024 Viet Nam No Phạm Chí Dũng Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Dũng remains in detention. (Information from the source) 40/2024 Bahrain Yes Habib Ali Habib Jasim Mohamed al-Fardan, Jasim Mohamed Saeed Ahmed Ali Ajwaid, Husain Ali Basheer Ali Khairalla and Ebrahim Yusuf Ali Ebrahim al-Samahiji Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Al-Fardan was unconditionally released through a royal pardon on 4 September 2024. He has not received any compensation or reparation. Mr. AlSamahiji remains in detention, but has been included in the Open Prisons programme, which aims to gradually relax conditions of detention based on good behaviour. (Information from the source) 41/2024 Mexico Yes Higinio Bustos Navarro Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V Mr. Bustos Navarro remains in detention following his conviction. He has not received any compensation. The relevant domestic laws were respected and applied throughout the criminal proceedings, ensuring the protection of his rights, in compliance with the international human rights obligations of Mexico. (Information from the Government) 42/2024 Libya No Abdurrahman Abduljalil Mohamed al-Farjani Detention arbitrary, categories I and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Al-Farjani remains in detention. (Information from the source) 43/2024 Morocco Yes Nasser Zefzafi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Zefzafi remains in detention. (Information from the source) 44/2024 Israel No Moath Amarneh, Abu Iram Ameer and Badr Mohammad Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, IV and V Mr. Mohammad was released on 26 August 2024 after completing his sentence. He is in poor health. No compensation has been provided to any of the three individuals by the Government. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 45/2024 India No Yunus Shah Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V Released on 10 January 2024 before the adoption of the opinion. Mr. Shah’s detention complied with applicable legal provisions and procedures. The question of compensation or inquiry therefore does not arise. The National Human Rights Commission carried out inquiries but dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated. (Information from the Government) Conditionally released in January 2024. Mr. Shah has not received compensation and no independent investigation has been conducted into violations of his rights. (Information from the source) 46/2024 Azerbaijan Yes Ruben Vardanyan Detention not arbitrary Not applicable 47/2024 Uzbekistan No (late) Valijon Kalonov Detention arbitrary, categories II and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Kalonov was transferred to a psychiatric clinic in Samarkand in April 2025. Visits are limited to immediate family members and only allowed twice a week. (Information from the source) 48/2024 Nicaragua No Jaime Enrique Navarrete Blandón Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Navarrete Blandón remains in detention. (Information from the source) 49/2024 Algeria No Ihsane el Kadi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 50/2024 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Yes Luis Fernando Camacho Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Camacho is lawfully detained and his detention is not arbitrary. (Information from the Government) No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Camacho remains in detention. (Information from the source) 51/2024 Viet Nam No Nguyễn Lân Thắng Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Nguyễn remains in detention. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 52/2024 Thailand No Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and V Ms. Sanesangkhom passed away in detention before the opinion was adopted. The inquiry into her death is ongoing. (Information from the source) 53/2024 Iran (Islamic Republic of) No (late) Toomaj Salehi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Although Mr. Salehi was sentenced to death under several charges, this was overturned by the Supreme Court and the case was referred to another court. Mr. Salehi was acquitted of the charge of corruption on earth and pardoned on other charges. The case was sent to the Supreme Court for the remaining charges. The final verdict is pending. (Information from the Government) Released on 1 December 2024 after completing his one-year sentence. Mr. Salehi is facing additional charges and is subject to a ban on travel and creating any form of art. (Information from the source) 54/2024 Belarus Yes Maria Rabkova Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 55/2024 Mexico Yes Juan Carlos Tovar Moreno Detention arbitrary, categories I and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Tovar Moreno remains in detention. (Information from the source) 56/2024 Niger Yes Mohamed Bazoum and Hadiza Bazoum Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III for Mr. Bazoum Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V for Ms. Bazoum Criminal proceedings against Mr. Bazoum are ongoing. Ms. Bazoum is not eligible for any compensation as she has chosen to remain with her spouse despite being allowed to leave the presidential palace. (Information from the Government) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 57/2024 Kyrgyzstan No (late) Saparbek Akunbekov, Aike Beishekeeva, Azamat Ishenbekov, Akylbek (“Akyl”) Orozbekov, Aktilek (“Maadanbek”) Kaparov, Tynystan Asypbekov, Saipidin Sultanaliev, Maksat Tazhibek uulu and Zhoodarbek Buzumov Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Kaparov and Ms. Beishekeeva were released on probation under supervision for three years. Messrs. Akunbekov, Orozbekov, Asypbekov, Sultanaliev, Tazhibek uulu and Buzumov were acquitted. (Information from the Government) Mr. Ishenbekov was released on 9 April 2025 through a presidential pardon. International travel bans imposed on Messrs. Akunbekov, Orozbekov, Asypbekov, Sultanaliev, Tazhibek uulu and Buzumov have not been lifted. No compensation or other forms of reparation have been made to any of the nine individuals. No investigation has been conducted into violations of their rights. There have been no legislative amendments or changes in practice to article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code. (Information from the source) 58/2024 India Yes Mohammad Arfat Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III, IV and V A writ petition has been filed on behalf of Mr. Arfat and the matter is currently sub judice. All legal remedies are available to him. (Information from the Government) Mr. Arfat was deported in May 2025. (Information from the source) 59/2024 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Yes Chun-gil Choi, Kook-kie Kim and Jung-wook Kim Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. All three individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) 60/2024 Bhutan No Birkha Bahadur Chhetri, Kumar Gautam and Sunman Gurung Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 61/2024 Tunisia Noc Abir Moussi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, IIII and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Ms. Moussi remains in detention. She is prevented from receiving family visits and the medical facilities in which she is detained are not sufficient to address her medical needs. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 62/2024 Uzbekistan No Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Tazhimuratov is serving his sentence. His imprisonment was the result of a proper trial conducted in strict compliance with the principles of legality, justice and independence of the court. No compensation was paid to him due to lack of grounds. An investigation did not reveal any acts of torture or ill-treatment or violations of his rights during his detention or trial. (Information from the Government) No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Tazhimuratov remains in detention and has been subjected to abuse and other ill-treatment, as well as restrictions on visits from his family and lawyer. (Information from the source) 63/2024 Morocco and Spain Yes Al-Hussein al-Bashir Ibrahim Detention by Morocco arbitrary, categories I and III Detention by Spain not arbitrary No action taken by the Government of Morocco to implement the opinion. Mr. Al-Bashir Ibrahim remains in detention. He was transferred on 18 May 2025 to a different prison, where he was placed in an overcrowded cell and in conditions impeding his ability to study for his university examinations. (Information from the source) 64/2024 Qatar No (late) Matthew Alexander Pascoe Detention arbitrary, categories I and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Pascoe remains in detention. (Information from the source) 65/2024 Israel No Islam Zahi Rasim al Rimawi Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V Mr. Al Rimawi was released on 14 August 2024. No compensation or reparations were made and no steps have been taken to investigate the violation of his rights. (Information from the source) 66/2024 Cuba No (late) Jorge Martín Perdomo and Nadir Martín Perdomo Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Both individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) 67/2024 Djibouti Yes Abdoulkarim Aden Cher Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Mr. Aden Cher remains in detention and judicial proceedings are ongoing. (Information from the source) GE.25-10957 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 68/2024 United Arab Emirates and United States of America United Arab Emirates: no United States: no (late) Mr. B, whose name is known to the Working Group Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, and IV None 69/2024 Mexico Yes Nino Colman Hoyos Henao Transmitted to the Committee against Torture Not applicable 70/2024 Nicaragua No Nancy Elizabeth Henríquez James Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Ms. Henríquez James remains in detention. (Information from the source) 71/2024d Saudi Arabia Yes Abdullah al-Derazi, Jalal al-Labbad, Yusuf Muhammad Mahdi alManasif, Jawad Abdullah Qureiris and Hassan Zaki al-Faraj Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, IV and V All five individuals remain in detention. They have appealed against their death sentences. The judgment is pending. (Information from the Government) The death sentences of Messrs. Al-Labbad and Al-Derazi were confirmed by the Supreme Court. They are awaiting execution. Messrs. Al-Manasif, Al-Faraj and Qureiris were retried and re-sentenced to death. (Information from the source) a The Government submitted a late response on 2 April 2024, after the opinion had been adopted. b The government submitted a late response on 22 September 2024, after the opinion had been adopted. c The Government submitted a late response on 26 February 2025, after the opinion had been adopted. d On 19 May 2025, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 71/2024, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. GE.25-10957

The table above shows information received by the Working Group as at 30 June 2025 pursuant to the follow-up procedure adopted by the Working Group at its seventy-sixth session, held in August 2016.

The Working Group thanks the sources and the Governments for their responses in the context of its follow-up procedure and invites all parties to cooperate and provide such responses. It notes, however, that those responses do not necessarily confirm the full implementation of its opinions. The Working Group encourages sources and Governments to provide comprehensive information on the implementation of its opinions, including on the release of individuals who have been the subject of its opinions, as well as other information, such as on the payment of compensation and/or reparations, the investigation of alleged violations and any other changes in legislation or practices, in accordance with the recommendations made.

Release of the subjects of the Working Group’s opinions

The Working Group notes with appreciation the information received during the reporting period on the release of the following 45 subjects of its opinions, which represents a continued increase in the number of releases reported over the last three years:
Husain Abdul Jalil Husain (opinion No. 41/2015, Bahrain) – released on 4 September 2024 through a royal decree pardoning him.
Abdelkader Belliraj (opinion No. 27/2016, Morocco) – released on 30 March 2025 through a royal decree pardoning him.
Mark Swidan (opinion No. 72/2019, China) – released on 27 November 2024, as part of a prisoner exchange.
Ahmed Isa Ahmed Yahya, Mohamed Abdulelah Abduljalil Ahmed and Salman Ali Salman Mohamed Saleh (opinion No. 5/2020, Bahrain) – released on 4 September 2024 through a royal decree pardoning them.
José Daniel Ferrer (opinion No. 50/2020, Cuba) – released conditionally on 16 January 2025.
Kai Li (opinion No. 78/2020, China) – released on 27 November 2024, as part of a prisoner exchange.
Habib Hasan Habib Yusuf (opinion No. 87/2020, Bahrain) – released on 4 September 2024 through a royal decree pardoning him.
Luis Robles Elizástegui (opinion No. 41/2021, Cuba) – released conditionally on 16 January 2025.
Leonard Peltier (opinion No. 7/2022, United States) – released on 18 February 2025 after his life sentence was commuted in January 2025.
Souleymane Raissouni (opinion No. 31/2022, Morocco) – released on 29 July 2024 through a royal decree pardoning him.
Hasan Hameed Abdulnabi Ali Naser Meshaimea (opinion No. 49/2022, Bahrain) – released on 4 September 2024 through a royal decree pardoning him.
Sergey Tihanovski (opinion No. 23/2021, Belarus) – released on 21 June 2025.
Yandier García Labrada (opinion No. 68/2023, Cuba) – released conditionally in January 2025.
Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo (opinion No. 73/2023, Cuba) – released conditionally on 17 January 2025.
Peter Shane Huxham and Frederik Johannes Potgieter (opinion No. 1/2024, Equatorial Guinea) – released in June 2025 through a presidential pardon.
Meryem Tekin (opinion No. 6/2024, Türkiye) – released in 2024.
Evan Gershkovich (opinion No. 11/2024, Russian Federation) – released on 1 August 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange.
Opinion No. 13/2024, Cuba:
Katia Beirut Rodríguez, Odet Hernández Cruzata, Fredy Beirut Matos and Luis Frómeta Compte – released conditionally.
Yoandry Reinier Sayu Silva – allowed extrapenal leave in January 2025.
Oreste Alfredo Schiavo Lavieri (opinion No. 15/2024, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – released on humanitarian grounds on 3 May 2025.
Muntadhar Abdali Mohamed Khatam, Murtadha Abdali Mohamed Khatam and Mohamed Abdali Mohamed Hasan Khatam (opinion No. 16/2024, Bahrain) – released on 8 April 2024 through a royal decree pardoning them.
Mr. A, whose name is known to the Working Group (opinion No. 23/2024, Australia) – released from immigration detention after being granted a visa on 17 November 2023.
Opinion No. 40/2024, Bahrain:
Jasim Mohamed Saeed Ahmed Ali Ajwaid and Husain Ali Basheer Ali Khairalla – released on 8 April 2024.
Habib Ali Habib Jasim Mohamed al-Fardan – released on 4 September 2024 through a royal decree pardoning him.
Yunus Shah (opinion No. 45/2024, India) – conditionally released on 10 January 2024.
Ihsane el Kadi (opinion No. 49/2024, Algeria) – released on 1 November 2024 through a presidential decree pardoning him.
Opinion No. 57/2024, Kyrgyzstan:
Azamat Ishenbekov – released through a presidential pardon on 9 April 2025.
Aike Beishekeeva and Aktilek (“Maadanbek”) Kaparov – conditionally released under supervision on 10 October 2024.
Saparbek Akunbekov, Akylbek (“Akyl”) Orozbekov, Saipidin Sultanaliev, Maksat Tazhibek uulu and Zhoodarbek Buzumov – released on 10 October 2024 following an acquittal, but subject to a travel ban.
Islam al Rimawi (opinion No. 65/2024, Israel) – released on 14 August 2024.
Mr. B, whose name is known to the Working Group (opinion No. 68/2024, United Arab Emirates and United States) – released on 4 March 2024 further to his inclusion in the United States Refugee Admissions Program.

The Working Group is grateful to Governments that released detainees who had been the subject of its opinions, although it notes that such releases do not always imply the full implementation of its opinions. It regrets that various States have not cooperated in implementing the opinions and urges those States to do so as a matter of urgency and to unconditionally release all individuals the Working Group has determined have been arbitrarily detained. The Working Group recalls that the continuous detention of those individuals is a continued violation of their right to liberty under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, for States Parties, under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Reactions from Governments concerning previous opinions

During the reporting period, the Working Group received reactions from several Governments concerning its previous opinions.

In a note verbale dated 19 August 2024, the Government of Algeria provided information on the judicial proceedings against Mr. Azzedine Maache, who was the subject of opinion No. 58/2023. It stated that Mr. Maache had not requested interim release. He had not received compensation, as the proceedings were ongoing. No investigation had been opened since his rights had not been violated. In addition, Algeria ensured that its legislation was in compliance with the international agreements that it had ratified.

In an explanatory note sent on 19 August 2024 concerning opinion No. 74/2023, the Government of Bahrain asserted that the individuals who were the subject of the opinion had been detained for crimes that posed a security threat, not on the basis of their political affiliation. It insisted that there were no political prisoners in the country, nor any arbitrary detention. Fair trial standards had been observed and arrests had been carried out with warrants and on the basis of evidence and reasonable suspicion. Oversight bodies monitored prison conditions, investigated complaints and ensured compliance with international standards, with prisoners receiving adequate medical care.

On 1 September 2024, the Government of China informed the Working Group that it rejected the findings in opinion No. 2/2024, which it considered were based on false information about the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region by anti-China forces, ignored that it was peaceful and prosperous, smeared the ethnic policies and counter-terrorism efforts of China, violated its judicial independence and sovereignty, and contravened the spirit of the rule of law and the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council. The Government stated that there was no human rights issue in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, since all ethnic groups, including the Uighurs, were working together towards a better future for the region.

In notes verbales dated 5 December 2024, 16 December 2024 and 19 May 2025, the Government of Saudi Arabia rejected the findings in opinions No. 10/2024, No. 26/2024 and No. 71/2024, respectively, noting that in those opinions the Working Group had summarized the allegations of the sources in greater detail than they had the responses of the Government. It criticized the Working Group’s methodology, suggesting that it had not carefully examined the Government’s responses due to its backlog of cases, and reminded the Working Group of its duty to comply with the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council:
(a) With regard to opinion No. 10/2024, the Government defended Mr. Al-Ghamdi’s conviction for terrorist crimes, which it considered, even if committed electronically, had threatened security and were not protected by freedom of opinion and expression. It asserted that its anti-terrorism legislation was clear and adequately protected against torture and ill-treatment. The Government further affirmed that Mr. Al-Ghamdi’s due process rights had been respected, that he had received regular family visits and had access to medical care;
(b) With regard to opinion No. 26/2024, the Government affirmed that Mr. Al-Faraj had been lawfully arrested in accordance with the anti-terrorism legislation and his right to due process had been respected. It considered unacceptable the Working Group’s finding that he had been legitimately exercising his freedom of opinion and expression. Mr. Al-Faraj was being treated well and had access to visits and phone calls. Allegations that he had been tortured had been determined to be unfounded;
(c) With regard to opinion No. 71/2024, the Government defended the arrests and detention of the five individuals concerned, stating that they had been adults at the time of arrest. It insisted that due process had been followed, including access to legal counsel, judicial oversight and the right to appeal. The Government rejected allegations of ill-treatment and discrimination, emphasizing that the individuals had been convicted of serious terrorist crimes that could not be justified as a legitimate exercise of freedom of opinion and expression. It also maintained that solitary confinement and communication restrictions had been imposed only under lawful, exceptional circumstances.

In a note verbale dated 7 August 2024, the Government of Tajikistan provided explanations regarding the investigation and judicial proceedings related to opinion No. 19/2024 concerning Messrs. Irgashov, Mamadshoev and Kholiknazarov. It reiterated that the three individuals faced charges for criminal activities, not their human rights activities.

In a note verbale dated 10 July 2024, the Government of Pakistan contested the findings in opinion No. 22/2024 concerning Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi. It considered that key facts had been overlooked, the judicial context and legal framework of the country had not been considered and the Working Group had made political determinations beyond its mandate. It further affirmed that the courts of Pakistan were free, independent and impartial, ensuring that Mr. Khan was accorded a fair trial, in line with constitutional requirements and international obligations.

In a letter dated 24 December 2024 concerning opinion No. 23/2024, the Government of Australia stated that Mr. A’s immigration detention was reasonable, necessary and proportionate. It affirmed that it was for the Government to determine who could enter its territory and under which conditions.

In a note verbale dated 3 December 2024 concerning opinion No. 33/2024, the Government of Türkiye stated that the Working Group had failed to give due consideration to information provided by the State. The individual in question had been duly convicted by a competent court of law for his lead role in the coup attempt perpetrated in 2016 against the democratically elected Government and people of Türkiye.

In a note verbale dated 22 May 2025 concerning opinion No. 35/2024, which related to eight individuals, the Government of Tunisia stated that it had been unable to reply to the Working Group’s communication in the case, as confidentiality measures had been ordered by the investigating judge. The Government provided information on the investigation and judicial proceedings, all of which it asserted had been carried out according to applicable law. It detailed the various terrorism-related charges of which each individual had been convicted and rejected the claim that they related to statements made as part of the exercise of fundamental freedoms. The Government further specified that the defendants were appealing their convictions.

In a letter dated 15 October 2024 concerning opinion No. 37/2024, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea affirmed that there were no cases of arbitrary detention in the country and that the allegations in the opinion were part of an unacceptable act of political scheming that tarnished the image of the State and infringed on its sovereignty and internal affairs.

In a note verbale dated 26 May 2025, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia expressed its disagreement with opinion No. 50/2024, in which it considered that the Working Group had inadequately examined the circumstances and underlying causes of Mr. Camacho’s detention, the current legal status of which was not arbitrary. The Government stated that the Working Group had not fairly considered the arguments that it had presented, nor provided it with an opportunity to respond to information submitted by the source on two occasions, reflecting a clear imbalance in the Working Group’s consideration of information. The Government considered that the Working Group made several ultra vires assertions, prejudging the political and social environment in the Plurinational State of Bolivia. It affirmed that only judicial bodies had the authority to determine appropriate remedies and recalled the importance of professional, impartial and balanced assessments as set out in the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council.

In a note verbale dated 18 March 2025, the Government of the Niger contested the findings of the Working Group in opinion No. 56/2024 concerning Mr. and Ms. Bazoum, on the basis that Mr. Bazoum had fully enjoyed all his rights without discrimination. It affirmed that he was detained for having called upon hostile foreign forces to attack the Niger and free him.

In a note verbale dated 22 May 2025 concerning opinion No. 57/2024, the Government of Kyrgyzstan provided information regarding the investigation into, and judicial proceedings against, the subjects of the opinion. It underlined that the judiciary was independent and subject to the Constitution and national legislation. In addition, the Ombudsman actively monitored the rights and conditions of detention of the concerned individuals, including by conducting visits, ensuring medical care was administered, investigating and reporting allegations of inadequate conditions and monitoring court proceedings.

In a note verbale dated 3 July 2025, the Government of Uzbekistan provided explanations regarding the investigation and judicial proceedings related to opinion No. 62/2024 concerning Mr. Tazhimuratov. The Government refuted any allegations of discrimination on national, linguistic or political grounds. It detailed the application of procedural guarantees for Mr. Tazhimuratov in detention and while on remand in custody. Judicial proceedings against Mr. Tazhimuratov have been carried out with full transparency. The Government rejected the findings of the Working Group in its opinion and confirmed that the measures taken in respect of Mr. Tazhimuratov had been in accordance with both national and international law.

Requests for review of adopted opinions

The Working Group considered the requests for review of the following opinions:
Opinion No. 23/2023 concerning 18 individuals (Morocco)
Opinion No. 67/2023 concerning Khatri Dadda (Morocco)
Opinion No. 10/2024 concerning Muhammad al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabia)
Opinion No. 21/2024 concerning Frédéric Joël Aïvo (Benin)
Opinion No. 26/2024 concerning Saud bin Mohammed bin Ali al-Faraj (Saudi Arabia)
Opinion No. 33/2024 concerning Akin Öztürk (Türkiye)
Opinion No. 43/2024 concerning Nasser Zefzafi (Morocco)

After examining the requests for review, the Working Group decided to maintain its opinions on the basis that none of the requests met the criteria outlined in paragraph 21 of its methods of work.

The Working Group notes with grave concern that it continues to receive information, including in the context of its follow-up procedure, about reprisals and intimidation suffered by individuals who have been the subject of an urgent appeal, a letter or an opinion or whose cases have given effect to a recommendation of the Working Group. The Working Group emphasizes that any such reprisals are entirely unacceptable and calls upon all States to cease such actions immediately.

During the reporting period, the Working Group received allegations of reprisals and/or intimidation against:
• Alexey Gorinov (opinion No. 78/2022, Russian Federation)³
• 18 individuals (opinion No. 23/2023, Morocco)⁴
• Hang Tuan Chow (opinion No. 30/2023, Hong Kong, China)5
• Roberto Pérez Fonseca (opinion No. 51/2023, Cuba)6 3 In addition to the allegations of reprisals noted in the Working Group’s previous annual report, a second criminal case against Mr. Gorinov was opened in September 2023 on terrorism-related charges. On 29 November 2024, he was sentenced to three additional years in prison. His health has significantly deteriorated. Authorities have repeatedly denied him basic necessities, including heating, medical care and access to correspondence. 4 Following publication of the opinion, the authorities have reportedly engaged in provocations and intimidations against prisoners and their families. 5 Following the notification of opinion No. 30/2023 to the government, the authorities reportedly placed Ms. Chow in solitary confinement on multiple occasions, starting in June 2023. 6 In addition to the allegations of reprisals noted in the Working Group’s previous annual report, Mr. Pérez Fonseca is allegedly facing threats within the prison instigated by prison officials and is being denied medical care. GE.25-10957.
• Jimmy Lai Chee-ying (opinion No. 34/2024, Hong Kong, China)⁷

3. In addition to the allegations of reprisals noted in the Working Group’s previous annual report, a second criminal case against Mr. Gorinov was opened in September 2023 on terrorism-related charges. On 29 November 2024, he was sentenced to three additional years in prison. His health has significantly deteriorated. Authorities have repeatedly denied him basic necessities, including heating, medical care and access to correspondence. ↩
4. Following publication of the opinion, the authorities have reportedly engaged in provocations and intimidations against prisoners and their families. ↩
7. Following publication of the opinion, the government issued a press release accusing members of Mr. Lai’s legal team of professional misconduct and abuse of United Nations mechanisms. The government also reportedly made other public statements accusing Mr. Lai’s international legal team and his son, Sebastien Lai, of seeking to interfere with or obstruct the course of justice following their engagement with the Human Rights Council. ↩

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council, in its resolutions 12/2 and 24/24, urged all States to prevent and refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and its mechanisms in the field of human rights, or who had provided testimony or information to them. The Working Group encourages States to take all measures possible to prevent reprisals.

During the period from 1 January to 31 December 2024, the Working Group sent urgent appeals and letters concerning more than 556 identified individuals. Specifically, the Working Group sent 30 urgent appeals, of which 27 were sent to 16 Governments and 3 to other actors, concerning at least 70 identified individuals. It also sent 102 allegation letters and other letters, of which 96 were sent to 52 Governments and 6 to other actors, concerning at least 486 individuals.

The States that received urgent appeals are: Belarus (5), China (1), Cyprus (1), Ecuador (1), Equatorial Guinea (1), Iran (Islamic Republic of ) (6), Iraq (3), Japan (1), Kenya (1), Pakistan (1), Qatar (1), Russian Federation (1), Rwanda (1), Singapore (1), United States (1) and Zimbabwe (1).⁸

8. The full text of each urgent appeal will be made available at www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx. ↩

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 the Governments concerned to the specific case as reported and appealed to them, often jointly with other special procedure mandate holders, to take the measures necessary to ensure that the detained persons’ rights to life, liberty and physical and psychological integrity were respected.

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 to give effect to a previous opinion of the Working Group seeking the release of the person, the Working Group requested that all the measures necessary for the immediate release of the detained person be taken. 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 Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council relating to urgent appeals and applies them.

The States that received allegation and other letters are: Albania (1), Algeria (2), Angola (2), Argentina (1), Azerbaijan (3), Bahrain (1), Bangladesh (1), Belarus (2), Burundi (1), Chile (1), China (6), Croatia (1), Cuba (2), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2), Egypt (5), El Salvador (1), Guinea-Bissau (2), India (1), Indonesia (1), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (3), Iraq (1), Israel (3), Italy (2), Kazakhstan (1), Kenya (1), Kyrgyzstan (3), Madagascar (1), Mali (1), Mexico (3), Nepal (1), Nicaragua (1), Pakistan (2), Russian Federation (5), Rwanda (1), Saudi Arabia (1), Senegal (1), Spain (2), Sri Lanka (1), Sudan (2), Switzerland (1), Thailand (5), Togo (2), Tunisia (1), Turkmenistan (1), Uganda (2), United Arab Emirates (1), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1), United Republic of Tanzania (1), Uzbekistan (1), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (4), Viet Nam (3) and Zambia (1).

The Working Group wishes to thank those Governments that responded to its appeals and letters and that took steps to provide it with information on the situation of the individuals concerned, especially the Governments that released such individuals. The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council, in paragraph 4 (f) of the annex to its resolution 5/1, encouraged all States to cooperate and engage fully with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.

On 8 November 2024, the Working Group sent the Government of Viet Nam a reminder of its earlier requests to visit the country.

Responses of Governments to requests for country visits

In 2024, the Working Group and representatives of the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva discussed potential dates for a country visit. On 16 October 2024, the Permanent Mission informed the Working Group that Australia would be pleased to host the Working Group’s visit between 1 and 12 December 2025. On 22 October 2024, the Working Group confirmed its availability to carry out the official visit to Australia during the aforementioned period.

In 2024, the Working Group continued its dialogue with the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva regarding potential dates for a country visit. On 10 October 2024, the Permanent Mission informed the Working Group that the Government of Korea had accepted the Working Group’s earlier proposal that the visit take place from 13 to 24 October 2025. On 14 May 2025, the Working Group informed the Permanent Mission that, owing to the current liquidity crisis affecting the Secretariat and the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, it was unable to secure the necessary funds to carry out the country visit in 2025. The Working Group therefore proposed that the visit take place in the first half of 2026 instead. On 18 June 2025, the Permanent Mission informed the Working Group that, due to domestic circumstances, the visit by the Working Group could take place in the second half of 2026 or later.

During the reporting period, the Working Group considered the thematic issue of alternatives to pretrial detention.

Echoing the broad international consensus that favours reducing the use of pretrial detention and increasing the use of alternative measures, the Working Group has consistently relied on the well-established principle of international law that pretrial detention must be the exception and not the rule.⁹

9. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 9 (3); United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), principle 6; Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 38; and opinions No. 28/2014, para. 43; No. 49/2014, para. 23; No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 1/2020, para. 53; No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 59/2023, para. 65; No. 50/2024, para. 88; and No. 54/2024, para. 78. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58. ↩

In situations in which unconditional release before trial may not be an option,¹⁰ pretrial release may be subjected to conditions to ensure an accused individual’s appearance at trial and other stages of the judicial proceedings. Those conditions – also referred to as alternatives to pretrial detention, non-custodial measures or bail¹¹ – represent a crucial safeguard against prolonged pretrial detention and serve as a fundamental component of the right to liberty. In addition, they constitute an important tool to combat prison overcrowding.¹² Conversely, inappropriate or inadequate use of alternatives to pretrial detention frequently results in unnecessary detention that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

10. Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, Criminal Justice Handbook Series (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.07.XI.2), p. 20. ↩
11. The term “bail” is also at times used to refer to the amount of money deposited by an accused individual as a security for appearance at trial. ↩
12. United Nations system common position on incarceration, pp. 3, 5 and 6; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, Criminal Justice Handbook Series (New York, 2013), pp. 11–18; A/HRC/30/19, paras. 4–11 and 54; and A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, paras. 32 and 50. ↩

Alternatives to pretrial detention may be financial or non-financial.

Financial conditions include the deposit of a monetary sum as a security and surety (a pledge by a third-party guarantor to pay a given amount if the accused does not appear for trial). The Working Group has observed with profound concern the imposition in some jurisdictions of unrealistic and onerous financial conditions that essentially render liberty illusory.¹³ In addition, financial conditions are often based on the nature of the offence without sufficient account of the person’s financial means, effectively transforming bail from a mechanism to ensure court appearance into a form of preventive detention based on economic status and the gravity of the offence. The Working Group underlines that financial conditions for release are not typically intended to ensure the reparation for loss but, rather, ensure the appearance of the accused at trial.¹⁴ Courts must conduct a thorough assessment of the individual’s personal circumstances and financial capacity, to ensure that the conditions imposed are affordable, while at the same time being consequential enough to deter flight.¹⁵ The fact that a detainee remains in custody after being granted conditional release suggests that a court might not have taken the necessary care in determining the appropriate conditions.¹⁶

13. A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 52, 53 and 93 (a); A/HRC/39/45/Add.2, para. 23; A/HRC/57/44/Add.2, para. 31; and opinions No. 49/2020, paras. 105, 114 and 115; and No. 27/2021, para. 39. ↩
14. Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, pp. 20 and 21; and Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, p. 97. ↩
15. European Court of Human Rights, Gafà v. Malta, Application No. 54335/14, Judgment, 22 May 2018, para. 70; United Nations system common position on incarceration, p. 11; and Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, p. 21. ↩
16. Opinion No. 27/2021, paras. 9 and 39. ↩

The Working Group has observed a welcome shift away from wealth-based detention, as non-financial conditions, including those based on modern technologies, become increasingly common.¹⁷ If appropriately tailored, such conditions present the advantage of mitigating flight risk while ensuring that pretrial liberty is not contingent upon financial resources. Moreover, they often prove more cost-effective than detention and reduce the social harms associated with unnecessary incarceration.¹⁸

17. A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, para. 53; A/HRC/57/44/Add.2, paras. 34 and 35; A/HRC/60/26/Add.1, para. 23; and opinions No. 37/2018, paras. 24 and 25; and No. 84/2018, paras. 45 and 46. ↩
18. United Nations system common position on incarceration, pp. 5 and 6; Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, pp. 11–18; A/HRC/30/19, paras. 4–11; and A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, paras. 25–27 and 32. ↩

Examples of non-financial conditions of release include:
Release on recognizance (according to which an individual is released based on a promise to appear in court).
Pretrial supervision programmes (which monitor individuals in the community while awaiting trial).
Electronic monitoring, such as through monitoring bracelets.
Regular reporting requirements.
Movement and travel restrictions, including the surrender of travel documents.

As with financial conditions of release, the Working Group emphasizes that non-financial conditions must remain necessary and proportionate in fulfilling a legitimate objective. They must also be achievable in practical terms, non-discriminatory and not disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. In addition, their application must not infringe the human rights of the accused, such as the right to privacy. Gender-specific non-custodial measures for women offenders should also be considered, recognizing that many do not pose a risk to society and that detention can exacerbate gender-based disadvantages.¹⁹

19. United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), rules 57–62. ↩

To achieve those goals, a sufficient number and variety of non-custodial measures should be available to allow courts to select the most context-appropriate ones.²⁰ When non-financial conditions are overly burdensome or impossible to fulfil, they merely substitute one form of arbitrary detention for another, undermining the very purpose of alternatives to pretrial detention.²¹ Moreover, the necessary legislative framework and institutional infrastructure must be in place to allow for non-custodial measures to be effective.²² For instance, any electronic measures used as alternatives to detention must be functional, so as not to shift the responsibility for their maintenance, cost or malfunctioning onto the individual.²³

20. The Tokyo Rules, rule 2 (3); and A/HRC/30/19, para. 55. See also Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, pp. 31 and 32. ↩
21. A/HRC/60/26/Add.1, para. 24. ↩
22. Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, pp. 22 and 23. ↩
23. A/HRC/57/44/Add.2, paras. 34–36. ↩

The Working Group underlines that, as with detention itself, alternatives to detention must be subject to judicial review.²⁴ The absence of systematic review mechanisms for situations in which individuals cannot meet the requirements for conditional pretrial release result in prolonged detention, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence.

24. The Tokyo Rules, rule 3 (5). See also Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, p. 56. ↩

In 2024, the Working Group continued to address the large number of submissions received, including through its regular communications procedure. The adoption of opinions was set as a priority, resulting in the adoption of 71 opinions, concerning 149 persons in 41 countries.

The Working Group continues to observe a low response rate from States under its regular communications procedure and its follow-up procedure. States provided a timely response to the Working Group’s communications in 42 per cent of the cases in which it adopted an opinion in 2024, but provided follow-up information in approximately only 30 per cent of those cases. In contrast, the Working Group received follow-up information from sources in approximately 75 per cent of the cases considered in 2024.

While the Working Group continues to respond to as many requests for its action as possible and to process cases in a timely and efficient manner in accordance with paragraph 16 of Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, it continues to face an ongoing backlog of cases and, as such, requires adequate and sustainable resources to fulfil its mandate.

Throughout the reporting period, the Working Group continued to explore various thematic issues to assist stakeholders in preventing arbitrary detention. That includes elaborating on the thematic topic of alternatives to pretrial detention in the present report.

The Working Group reiterates its call upon States to continue to increase their cooperation with regard to responses to regular and other communications, by 19 United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), rules 57–62. 20 The Tokyo Rules, rule 2 (3); and A/HRC/30/19, para. 55. See also Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, pp. 31 and 32. 21 A/HRC/60/26/Add.1, para. 24. 22 Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, pp. 22 and

23 A/HRC/57/44/Add.2, paras. 34–36. 24 The Tokyo Rules, rule 3 (5). See also Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, p. 56. GE.25-10957. reporting through the follow-up procedure on the implementation of the Working Group’s opinions (including on the provision of appropriate remedies and reparations to victims of arbitrary detention) and by responding positively to requests for country visits.

The Working Group encourages States to refer to the percentage of pretrial detainees within their prison populations as an indicator for measuring the efficiency of, and access to, justice systems, in accordance with Sustainable Development Goal 16.

The Working Group recalls that alternatives to pretrial detention must be practical, proportional and non-discriminatory. To this end, legislation should include a sufficient number and variety of non-custodial measures, particularly non-financial ones, to protect liberty while ensuring court appearances.

The Working Group urges Member States to provide it with adequate and predictable human resources to allow it to fulfil its mandate in an effective and sustainable manner.

The Working Group once again echoes the call by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, made in January 2023, to end arbitrary detention once and for all. The Working Group calls upon Governments to take, without delay, the further steps necessary to remedy the situation of all individuals arbitrarily detained, including by ensuring their release and an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations.