Arbitrary detention

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights. Its mandate was most recently extended for a three-year period in resolution 60/8 of the Human Rights Council, on 6 October 2025.

During the period from 1 January to 30 March 2025, the Working Group was composed of Miriam Estrada-Castillo (Ecuador), Matthew Gillett (New Zealand), Priya Gopalan (Malaysia), Mumba Malila (Zambia) and Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine). Following the resignation of Ms. Gopalan, Ethan Hee-Seok Shin (Republic of Korea) was appointed as a member from the Asia-Pacific States by the Human Rights Council during its fifty-ninth session, effective as from 1 August 2025.

From April 2024 to March 2025, Mr. Gillett served as Chair-Rapporteur, Ms. Yudkivska as Vice-Chair on communications and Ms. Gopalan as Vice-Chair on follow-up. At the 102nd session of the Working Group, in March 2025, Ms. Yudkivska was elected as Chair-Rapporteur, Mr. Gillett as Vice-Chair on communications and Ms. Estrada-Castillo as Vice-Chair on follow-up.

During the period from 1 January to 31 December 2025, the Working Group held its 102nd, 103rd and 104th sessions.

The Working Group conducted a visit to Australia from 1 to 12 December 2025.¹

1. See A/HRC/63/33/Add.1. ↩

The Working Group met with States and non-governmental organizations to gather information on arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to enhance understanding of the Working Group’s methods of work² and its operations.

2. A/HRC/36/38. ↩

Communications transmitted to Governments

At its 102nd, 103rd and 104th sessions, the Working Group adopted 78 opinions concerning 210 persons in 38 countries, comprising 182 men (including 4 minors) and 28 women (see the 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, 51/8 and 60/8, in which those bodies requested States 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 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. 1 See A/HRC/63/33/Add.1. 2 A/HRC/36/38. GE.26-10910 Opinions adopted at 102nd, 103rd and 104th sessions of the Working Group Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 1/2025 Saudi Arabia Yes Mohsen Saleh Nasser al-Awlaki Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V The sentence was reduced on appeal to six and a half years of imprisonment. Mr. Al-Awlaki is serving his sentence in prison. (Information from the Government and the source) 2/2025 Tunisia No³ Bechir Akremi Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Akremi was sentenced to 23 years in prison. (Information from the source) 3/2025 Algeria No (late) Yacine Cheref Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Released after serving sentence. Compensation proceedings are premature as conviction depends on appeal. (Information from the Government) 4/2025 Belarus No (late) Dzyanis Ivashyn Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Ivashyn remains in detention. (Information from the source) 5/2025 Myanmar Yes Linn Htut Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 6/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Rocío San Miguel Sosa Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Ms. San Miguel Sosa was conditionally released on 11 January 2026. (Information from the source) 7/2025 China No Reyihanguli Tuoheti, Kuerban Maimaitimin and Ali Mehmet Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V None 8/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes José Javier Tarazona Sánchez Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was conditionally released on 1 February 2026. (Information from the source) 9/2025 China Yes Ji Xiaolong and Chen Pinlin Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Messrs. Ji and Chen remain in detention. (Information from the source) 10/2025 China Yes Mulizati Tayier Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V None 3 The Government submitted a late response on 16 April 2025, after the opinion had been adopted. GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 11/2025 Afghanistan No Ryan Corbett Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Corbett was released on 20 January 2025 and left Afghanistan. He has not received compensation or reparations. (Information from the source) 12/2025 Türkiye Yes Adil Sibih Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and IV and V Mr. Sibih remains in detention. (Information from the source) 13/2025 Equatorial Guinea Yes 37 inhabitants of Annobón Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V All 37 individuals have been pardoned and released. (Information from the Government) 14/2025 Nicaragua No Abdul Montoya Vivas Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Montoya Vivas was expelled from the country in October 2024 and stripped of nationality. He has not received compensation or reparations. (Information from the source) 15/2025 Iran (Islamic Republic of) No Jina Modares Gorji Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 16/2025 Cameroon No Urbain Awono Olanguena The Working Group considers that Mr. Olanguena’s case has already been examined by the Human Rights Committee and should be transmitted to it, in accordance with paragraph 33 (d) (ii) of its methods of work, so that the Committee may take such follow-up action as it considers appropriate. Mr. Olanguena remains in detention. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 17/2025 Uzbekistan No (late) Gulnara Karimova Detention arbitrary, categories I and III The convictions followed independent proceedings. Domestic courts found the judgments lawful, leaving no grounds to fully implement the opinion. Measures to improve engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms include updated regulations governing interaction among State bodies on communications and decisions of United Nations mechanisms, training for State institutions and civil society on implementing recommendations of United Nations mechanisms, and reforms to improve access to justice. The opinion was disseminated to competent authorities. (Information from the Government) No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. Ms. Karimova remains in detention. (Information from the source) 18/2025 Kazakhstan Yes Marat Zhylanbaev Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V. Mr. Zhylanbaev is serving his sentence. Conditions of detention are regularly inspected. No violations of his rights were identified. (Information from the Government) Mr. Zhylanbaev remains in detention. His health has deteriorated. (Information from the source) 19/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Igbert José Marín Chaparro, Víctor Eduardo Soto Méndez, Juan Carlos Peña Palmieri, Deibis Esteban Mota Marrero Detention arbitrary, categories I and III. All four individuals remain in detention, despite having fully served their sentences. The Government initiated new criminal proceedings against them. (Information from the source) 20/2025 Morocco No (late) Yidiresi Aishan Detention arbitrary, category I On 12 February 2025, Mr. Aishan was released. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 21/2025 Mexico Yes Manuel Santiz Cruz, Agustín Pérez Domínguez, Juan Velasco Aguilar, Martín Pérez Domínguez and Agustín Pérez Velasco Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V On 25 October 2025, the Government reported that the five individuals had filed for an amparo remedy, which was still pending. No decision concerning compensation had therefore yet been issued. (Information from the Government) All five individuals were released on 21 November 2025, following an amparo appeal. No compensation has been granted. (Information from the source) 22/2025 Nicaragua No Rodrigo Bruno Arcángel, Stony Bruno Smith, Oliver Bruno Palacios and Evertz Bruno Palacios Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V All four individuals remain in detention and their health has deteriorated. (Information from the source) 23/2025 Egypt Yes Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam Abd el-Fattah Hamed Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V On 23 September 2025, Mr. Abd el-Fattah Hamed received a presidential pardon and was released. (Information from the source) 24/2025 Israel No Layan Kayed, Ahmad Maher Abdul Raziq Kharouf and Khalida Kanaan Mohammad Jarrar Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 25/2025 Egypt No (late) Oqba Alaa Labib Hashad and Seif el-Din Khaled el-Din Fateen Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Messrs. Hashad and Fateen are being held in preventive detention. (Information from the Government and the source) 26/2025 Saudi Arabia Yes Amr Alaa El-Din Mohamed Attia Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Released and left Saudi Arabia on 29 April 2025. (Information from the Government) Deported from Saudi Arabia on 29 April 2025. (Information from the source) 27/2025 Iran (Islamic Republic of) No Shahab Dalili Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V On 18 February 2026, Mr. Dalili was released upon completing his sentence. He thereafter left the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 28/2025 Qatar No (late) Tayeb Benabderrahmane Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. The death sentence remains in force. The authorities are seeking Mr. Benabderrahmane and attempted to secure his transfer from Malaysia through bilateral extradition arrangements. (Information from the source) 29/2025 Egypt No (late) Ibrahim Amer Shehata Fattouh Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Shehata Fattouh was referred to trial. (Information from the source) 30/2025 Viet Nam No To Hoang Chuong and Thach Cuong Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Messrs. Chuong and Cuong are serving their sentences. Their rights are being fully guaranteed. They will be released upon completion of their prison terms. (Information from the Government) Messrs. Chuong and Cuong remain in detention. (Information from the source) 31/2025 Saudi Arabia Yes Ali Hussein Al Wadaei Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Al Wadaei remains in detention. (Information from the source) 32/2025 Egypt Yes Ahmed Yousry Mohamed elSayed Yamani Nassr and Mohamed Mahmoud Suleiman Ali al-Kholi Detention arbitrary, categories I and III None 33/2025 Belarus and Russian Federation Belarus: Yes Russian Federation: No (late) Aliaksandr Kapshul Belarus: Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Russian Federation: Detention arbitrary, category I Mr. Kapshul remains in detention. (Information from the source) 34/2025 Russian Federation No Viktor Babaiev, Ruslan Skrypnik, Mykita Rolya, Oleksii Chinchoi, Dmitro Mocharny and Danyyl Khlopetsky Detention arbitrary, categories I and V Messrs. Chinchoi, Rolya and Skrypnik were unconditionally released in July, September and October 2024 respectively. Messrs. Mocharny and Khlopetsky were transferred to immigration detention in November 2025. Mr. Babaiev is serving his sentence until December 2026. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 35/2025 Russian Federation No Igor Brukhanda, Dmitro Semibalamut and Igor Shvachka Detention arbitrary, categories I and V No action taken by the Government to implement the opinion. (Information form the source) 36/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) No (late) Uaiparu Güerere López Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Güerere López was conditionally released on 27 March 2026. No further action has been taken by the Government to implement the opinion. (Information from the source) 37/2025 Yemen and Saudi Arabia Yemen: No Saudi Arabia: Yes Bassam Shukri Ahmed Mukhtar Al Jalladi Yemen: Detention arbitrary, category I Saudi Arabia: Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Al Jalladi remains in detention. (Information from the source) 38/2025 Thailand No Sirapob Phumphengphut Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Phumphengphut was released in August 2025 following a royal pardon. No further action has been taken by the Government to implement the opinion. (Information from the source) 39/2025 Bangladesh No (late) Dil Mohammed Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Mohammed remains in detention. (Information from the source) 40/2025 Bangladesh No (late) Shahriar Kabir Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Kabir remains in detention. (Information from the source) 41/2025 Mexico Yes Keren Selsy Ordóñez Hernández Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V The amparo appeal against Ms. Ordoñez Hernández’s acquittal remains pending. She will be able to seek reparation once the decision becomes final. The investigation into the harm caused to her is ongoing, and human rights training on detainee handling has been instructed for the State Investigation Police. (Information from the Government) An amparo appeal was filed against the acquittal of Ms. Ordoñez Hernández. There is a risk that a new arrest warrant could be issued against her. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 42/2025 Mexico Yes Cipriano García Amaya Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. García Amaya is serving a 50-year sentence. No appeal is pending. The Human Rights Commission of the State of Nuevo León identified violations of the human rights of Mr. García Amaya. An investigation into alleged administrative liability was initiated. (Information from the Government) Mr. García Amaya remains in detention, and there has been no progress on investigating the allegations of torture. (Information from the source) 43/2025 United Arab Emirates No Charles Ridley Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Ridley remains in detention. (Information from the source) 44/2025 Viet Nam No Nguyễn Chí Tuyến Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Nguyễn is serving his sentence. His rights are being fully guaranteed. He will be released upon completion of his sentence. (Information from the Government) Mr. Nguyễn remains in detention. (Information from the source) 45/2025 Cambodia and Thailand Cambodia: No (late) Thailand: No Bilal Mohammed and Yusufu Mieraili Cambodia: Detention arbitrary, category I Thailand: Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V On 11 June 2026, both individuals were sentenced to death. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 46/2025 Cuba No Mitzael Díaz Paseiro, Nidia Bienes Paseiro, Ariana López Roque, Orlando Pineda Martínez, Yunior Jorge Ramos Yera, Yunior Iglesias Velázquez, Loreto Hernández García, Donaida Pérez Paseiro, Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac, Lisdiani Rodríguez Isaac, Juvier Jiménez Gómez, Demis Valdés Sarduy, Ciro Alexis Casanova Pérez, Yeidel Carrero Pablo, Yamani Noel Pupo Soto and José Enrique Pablo Oliva Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Ms. López Roque, Mr. Casanova Pérez, Mr. Jiménez Gómez, Ms. Rodríguez Isaac, Ms. Bienes Paseiro, Mr. Pineda Martínez, Mr. Pupo Soto, Mr. Carrero Pablo and Mr. Ramos Yera were conditionally released. Ms. Rodríguez Isaac and Mr. Díaz Paseiro were granted extrapenitentiary leave in January 2025, subject to restrictions. Ms. Pérez Paseiro was conditionally released in January 2025; on 11 June 2025, her parole was revoked, as she was campaigning for the release of Mr. Hernández García. (Information from the source) 47/2025 China and Thailand China: Yes Thailand: No Gui Minhai China: Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III Thailand: Detention not arbitrary None 48/2025 Iran (Islamic Republic of) Yes Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were released on 4 November 2025. On 7 April 2026, they were permitted to return to France. (Information from the source) 49/2025 Viet Nam No4 Phan Tất Thành Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Phan is serving his sentence. His rights are being fully guaranteed. He will be released immediately upon completion of his sentence. (Information from the Government) Mr. Phan remains in detention. His health has deteriorated. (Information from the source) 50/2025 Belarus No Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Ms. Sharenda-Panasiuk was released on 2 February 2025, after serving her sentence. (Information from the source) 4 The Government replied to the communication on 7 October 2025, after the adoption of the opinion. GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 51/2025 Congo Yes Jean Léonard Mbarusha Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Mr. Mbarusha remains in detention. (Information from the source) 52/2025 Kyrgyzstan No Makhabat Tazhibek kyzy Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V On 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial, stressing the need for a comprehensive and objective examination of the case following the Working Group’s conclusions. On 23 March 2026, the District Court replaced Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s pretrial detention with a written undertaking by her not to leave the city. The criminal case remains pending. (Information from the Government) On 23 March 2026, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was released pending retrial and was placed under travel restrictions. (Information from the source) 53/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Franklin Alfredo Caldera Martínez Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V Mr. Caldera Martínez is no longer deprived of his liberty. His release did not result from any action by the authorities. (Information form the source) 54/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Américo Giuseppe De Grazia Veltri, Carlos Marcelino Chancellor Ferrer and Williams Daniel Dávila Barrios Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V The three individuals were conditionally released in July and August 2025 and were granted amnesty on 10 March 2026. (Information from the source) 55/2025 Eswatini Yes Mthandeni Dube and Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V On 5 November 2025, Mr. Dube was granted a conditional royal pardon and was released subject to restrictions on his speech, movement and political activity. Mr. Mabuza remains imprisoned. Neither conviction has been overturned. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 56/2025 Egypt Yes Ahmed Shawky Abdelsattar Mohamed Amasha Detention arbitrary, category I, II, III and V Mr. Amasha remains in pretrial detention. (Information from the source) 57/2025 Cuba No⁵ Jorge Bello Domínguez, Mijaíl Sánchez de la Nuez, Orlando Valle Jorge, Brenda Díaz García, Lizandra Góngora Espinosa, Yasdani Benítez Quesada, Yandi Hernández Montes de Oca, Carlos Manuel Fonseca Borges, Yanley López Basulto, Carlos Raúl Perdomo Cancio, Yander Rodríguez Iglesias, Ismael Rodríguez González, Yendri Vidal Limonta, Yasiel de Jesús Chinea Solano, Yasiel Hernández Márquez, Juan Pablo Martínez Monterrey, Daisel González Álvarez, Lázaro Antonio Rodríguez Jerez, Yasbelys Rodríguez León, Marlon Noval Alonso, Yunior Pérez López, Yismel Alfonso Oliva, Lázaro Yeison Cecé Gálvez, Dariel Rosa Pérez, Yosnel Laferté Salazar, Joselín Orta Llorens, Gilberto Castillo Castillo, Jorge Luis Lugones Lara, Elienay Maresma Mesa, Yunaikis González Pérez, Hortensia Oceguera González, Claudia González Amarán and Kevin Ángel Álvarez Echevarría Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Fonseca Borges, Mr. López Basulto, Mr. Rodríguez González, Mr. Chinea Solano, Mr. Rodríguez Jerez, Mr. Cecé Gálvez, Mr. Rosa Pérez, Mr. Laferté Salazar, Mr. Castillo Castillo, Mr. Lugones Lara, Mr. Martínez Monterrey and Mr. Pérez López were granted parole. Ms. Díaz García, Ms. Benítez Quesada, Mr. Hernández Montes de Oca and Mr. Alfonso Oliva were granted extrapenitentiary leave between January and March 2025. They are subject to restrictions. (Information from the source) 5 The Government replied to the communication on 3 September 2025, after the adoption of the opinion. GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 58/2025 China Yes Nuermaimaiti Maiwulani Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V Mr. Nuermaimaiti remains detained despite having completed his sentence on 17 January 2026. (Information from the source) 59/2025 United Arab Emirates No Albert Douglas Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Douglas was released on 26 April 2025 and allowed to return to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in December 2025. (Information from the source)⁶ 60/20256 Saudi Arabia Yes Mohammad Labbad and Mohammad Abdullah al-Faraj Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Both individuals remain in detention. They are being treated well in a manner that preserves their dignity and guarantees all their rights, including their right to receive visits and communicate with others. (Information from the Government) Both individuals remain in detention on death row. (Information from the source) 61/2025 Kyrgyzstan Yes Klara Sooronkulova, Rita Karasartova, Gulnara Dzhurabayeva, Asya Sasykbayeva and Perizat Suranova Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, and III All five individuals were acquitted on 14 June 2024. (Information from the Government) All five individuals remain under house arrest pending resolution of the prosecution’s appeal against their acquittal. (Information from the source) 62/2025 Pakistan No Mohammad Idris Khattak Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Khattak remains in detention. His health has deteriorated. (Information from the source) 6 On 22 July 2026, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 60/2025, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 63/2025 Tunisia No (late) Rached Kheriji Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Kheriji is being held in a correctional facility after being sentenced in accordance with the law. He enjoys all the legal safeguards guaranteed to individuals held in correctional facilities, including rights to medical care. He is entitled to visits under the same regulations applicable to other prisoners incarcerated for terrorist offences. (Information from the Government) On 2 June 2026, Mr. Kheriji was sentenced to life imprisonment. Aged 85, he was recently hospitalized again. Authorities are preventing his lawyers and family from visiting him during his hospitalization. (Information from the source) 64/2025 Greece Yes Five minors Detention arbitrary, categories I and IV No action has been taken by the Government to implement the opinion. (Information from the source) 65/2025 Algeria No (late) Tahar Larbi Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and V Mr. Labri remains in detention. His case remains pending before the Supreme Court. (Information from the source) 66/2025 India No Umar Khalid Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Khalid remains in detention. (Information from the source) 67/2025 Cambodia No (late) Chandaravuth Ly, Kunthea Long, Keoraksmey Phuon, Ratha Thun and Leanghy Yim Detention arbitrary, category I, II, III and V All five individuals remain in detention. (Information from the source) 68/2025 Cambodia No Koet Saray Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Saray appealed to the Supreme Court. The case remains under consideration. (Information from the Government) Mr. Saray remains in detention. (Information from the source) GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 69/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Nélida del Rosario Sánchez Oropeza Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was released on 10 February 2026 and granted amnesty on 31 March 2026. No further action has been taken by the Government to implement the opinion. (Information from the source) 70/2025 Equatorial Guinea No Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Ndong Nlang is serving his sentence. Compensation is not warranted as the conviction followed due process. (Information from the Government). Mr. Ndong Nlang remains in incommunicado detention. (Information from the source)⁷ 71/20257 Saudi Arabia Yes Mr. E. (whose name is known to the Working Group), Farhat Fathi Abdel Maksoud Abu al-Saud and Mohamed Kamel Salah Kamel Detention arbitrary, categories I, III and V The Supreme Court upheld sentences finding Messrs. Al-Saud, Kamel and E. guilty of offences punishable under the Law on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances. The death sentences imposed on them as a punitive measure have been carried out. (Information from the Government) Messrs. Al-Saud and Kamel were executed on 25 May and 25 June 2025 respectively. Mr. E was executed in late 2025. (Information from the source) 72/2025 Bahrain Yes Abbas Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma, Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, Abdulaziz Husain J. Alhammadi and Aqeel Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Alhammadi was released on 2 December 2025 under the alternative sentencing programme. Messrs. Juma and Abdulla remain in detention. (Information from the source) 73/2025 China No (late) Xie Yang Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V Mr. Xie remains in detention. (Information from the source) 7 On 28 July 2026, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 71/2025, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. GE.26-10910 Opinion No. State(s) Government reply Person(s) concerned Opinion Follow-up information received 74/2025 United Republic of Tanzania No (late) Tundu Antiphas Mughwai Lissu Detention arbitrary, categories I, II, III and V None 75/2025 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Yes Sofía Sahagún Ortiz Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Ms. Sahagún Ortiz was conditionally released on 12 January 2026. She is appealing against the rejection of her amnesty application. The Government dispossessed her of her family home. (Information form the source) 76/2025 Libya No (late) Hasan and Mohammed Elfargani Salem Detention arbitrary, categories I and III Both individuals were released on 31 March 2025. (Information from the source) 77/2025 Saudi Arabia⁸ Yes Ahmed Ali al-Doush Detention arbitrary, categories I, II and III Mr. Al-Doush is serving his sentence at the General Investigation Directorate prison in Riyadh in accordance with the final judicial ruling. His rights, including the right to receive visits and the right to medical care, are being upheld. The Human Rights Commission has found that the procedures carried out in his regard were sound and that and that none of his rights have been breached. (Information from the Government) 78/2025 Peru Yes José Pedro Castillo Detention arbitrary, categories I and III None 8 On 29 July 2026, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 77/2025, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. GE.26-10910

3. The Government submitted a late response on 16 April 2025, after the opinion had been adopted. ↩
5. The Government replied to the communication on 3 September 2025, after the adoption of the opinion. ↩
6. On 22 July 2026, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 60/2025, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. ↩
7. On 28 July 2026, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 71/2025, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. ↩
8. On 29 July 2026, the Government submitted a request for review of opinion No. 77/2025, which will be considered by the Working Group at a future session. ↩

The table above shows information received by the Working Group as at 17 July 2026 pursuant to the follow-up procedure adopted by the Working Group at its seventy-sixth session.

The Working Group thanks the Governments and the sources 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 these responses do not necessarily confirm 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 concerning the release of 115 persons (four minors and 17 women) who were the subjects of its opinions. This represents the highest number of releases reported in a single reporting period, an increase of approximately 156% compared with 2024, and continues the sustained upward trend observed over the past four years:
Mohammed al-Qahtani (opinion No. 38/2015, Saudi Arabia), Issa al-Nukheifi (opinion No. 71/2019, Saudi Arabia), Adbulkareem Yousef al-Khoder (opinion No. 38/2015, Saudi Arabia), Raif Badawi (opinion No. 38/2015, Saudi Arabia), Loujain Alhathloul (opinion No. 33/2020, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia), Mohammed Saleh Al-Khoudary (opinion No. 34/2021, Saudi Arabia), Hani Mohammed Al Khoudary (opinion No. 34/2021, Saudi Arabia), Salma bint Sami bin Adbulmohsen al-Shehab (opinion No. 27/2023, Saudi Arabia) and Fadhel al-Manasif (opinion No. 38/2015, Saudi Arabia) – released by 9 July 2025.
Anchan Preelerd (opinion No. 64/2021, Thailand) – released on 27 August 2025 following a royal pardon.
Hugo Martínez Gorostieta (opinion No. 67/2021, Mexico) – acquitted and released on 6 November 2025.
Robert Pether (opinion No. 70/2021, Iraq) – released on 5 June 2025. He remains under a travel ban.
Andrew Armando Córdova (opinion No. 1/2022, Mexico) – acquitted and released on 3 March 2026.
Nourah bin Saeed al-Qahtani (opinion No. 27/2023, Saudi Arabia) – released on 10 November 2025.
Abdul Aziz Goma (opinion No. 39/2023, Togo) – released in January 2026.
Igor Losik (opinion No. 45/2023, Belarus) – released in September 2025.
Paul Maillot (opinion No. 36/2024, Madagascar) – unconditionally released on 13 October 2025 through a presidential pardon.
Rocío San Miguel Sosa (opinion No. 6/2025, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – conditionally released on 11 January 2026.
José Javier Tarazona Sánchez (opinion No. 8/2025, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – conditionally released on 1 February 2026.
Ryan Corbett (opinion No. 11/2025, Afghanistan) – released on 20 January 2025.
37 inhabitants of Annobón (opinion No. 13/2025, Equatorial Guinea) – pardoned and released.
Yidiresi Aishan (opinion No. 20/2025, Morocco) – released on 12 February 2025.
Manuel Santiz Cruz, Agustín Pérez Domínguez, Juan Velasco Aguilar, Martín Pérez Domínguez and Agustín Pérez Velasco (opinion No. 21/2025, Mexico) – acquitted and released on 21 November 2025.
Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam Abd el-Fattah Hamed (opinion No. 23/2025, Egypt) – released on 22 September 2025 following a presidential pardon.
Ruslan Skrypnik, Mykita Rolya and Oleksii Chinchoi (opinion No. 34/2025, Russian Federation) – unconditionally released from July to October 2024.
Uaiparu Güerere López (opinion No. 36/2025, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – conditionally released on 27 March 2026.
Sirapob Phumphengphut (opinion No. 38/2025, Thailand) – released in August 2025 following a royal pardon.
Keren Selsy Ordóñez Hernández (opinion No. 41/2025, Mexico) – acquitted and released on 16 April 2025.
Ariana López Roque, Ciro Alexis Casanova Pérez, Juvier Jiménez Gómez, Lisdiani Rodríguez Isaac, Nidia Bienes Paseiro, Orlando Pineda Martínez, Yamani Noel Pupo Soto, Yeidel Carrero Pablo and Yunior Jorge Ramos Yera – conditionally released; and Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac and Mitzael Díaz Paseiro – were granted extrapenitentiary leave; in January 2025 (opinion No. 46/2025, Cuba).
Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris (opinion No. 48/2025, Islamic Republic of Iran) – released from prison on 4 November 2025 and permitted to leave the Islamic Republic of Iran on 7 April 2026.
Makhabat Tazhibek kyzy (opinion No. 52/2025, Kyrgyzstan) – released on 23 March 2026 pending retrial.
Américo Giuseppe De Grazia Veltri, Carlos Marcelino Chancellor Ferrer and Williams Daniel Dávila Barrios (opinion No. 54/2025, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – granted amnesty and conditionally released on 10 March 2026.
Mthandeni Dube (opinion No. 55/2025, Eswatini) – granted a conditional royal pardon on 5 November 2025 and released with restrictions on his speech, movement and political activity.
Carlos Manuel Fonseca Borges, Yanley López Basulto, Isamel Rodríguez González, Yasiel de Jesús Chinea Solano, Lázaro Antonio Rodríguez Jérez, Lázaro Yaison Cecé Gálvez, Dariel Rosa Pérez, Yosnel Laferté Salazar, Gilberto Castillo Castillo, Jorge Luis Lugones Lara, Juan Pablo Martínez Monterrey, Yunior Pérez López – conditionally released; and Brenda Díaz García, Yasdani Benítez Quesada, Yandi Hernández Montes de Oca and Yismel Alfonso Oliva – were granted extrapenitentiary leave; between January and March 2025 (opinion No. 57/2025, Cuba).
Albert Douglas (opinion No. 59/2025, United Arab Emirates) – released on 26 April 2025 and allowed to leave the United Arab Emirates in December 2025.
Nélida del Rosario Sánchez (opinion No. 69/2025, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – released on 10 February 2026 and granted amnesty on 31 March 2026.
Abdulaziz Husain J. Alhammadi (opinion No. 72/2025, Bahrain) – released on 2 December 2025 under the alternative sentencing programme.
Sofía María Sahagún Ortiz (opinion No. 75/2025, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – conditionally released on 13 January 2026.
Hasan and Mohammed Elfargani Salem (opinion No. 76/2025, Libya) – released on 31 March 2025 following a presidential pardon.
Chaturman Tamang and Hasta Bahadur Rai (opinion No. 11/2026, Bhutan) – released on 1 June 2026 following a royal pardon.
Sade Nidal Mreish (a minor) (opinion No. 15/2026, Israel) – released on 9 April 2026.
Minors B, C and D (opinion No. 25/2026, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) – conditionally released on 24 December 2025 and granted amnesty in January 2026.

The Working Group is grateful to those 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.

Reactions from Governments concerning previous opinions

In a note verbale dated 13 October 2025, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran provided an update about Ahmadreza Djalali, the subject of opinion No. 92/2017. The Government noted that Mr. Djalali’s arrest complied with domestic legislation. He had been convicted for cooperating with an enemy intelligence service. Following the attack on Evin Prison where he was being held, he had been transferred to another prison. His health was assessed as good.

In a note verbale dated 21 February 2025, concerning opinion No. 24/2024, the Government of Algeria noted that Messrs. Bendjama and Farrah had been convicted and had been released after the expiry of their sentences. They had not submitted compensation claims because they were aware that the conditions for the granting of compensation were not met. They had benefited from all rights relating to fair trial guarantees.

In a note verbale dated 5 May 2025, concerning opinion No. 29/2024, the Government of Algeria reported that Mohamed Riahi had been released on 29 May 2024 after serving his sentence. It stated that compensation proceedings were premature as his conviction remained subject to a cassation review. The Government rejected the allegations that police officers had committed human rights violations against him, citing the findings of a medical examination. Mr. Riahi had enjoyed all rights and benefited from all due process guarantees.

In a note verbale dated 24 June 2026, the Government of Viet Nam rejected the findings contained in opinion No. 39/2024. The arrest, investigation and trial of Pham Chi Dung had been conducted in accordance with Vietnamese law. While serving his sentence, he had been guaranteed the rights of prisoners as prescribed by law. Mr. Pham would be released upon completion of his prison sentence.

In a note verbale dated 22 August 2025, the Government of Uzbekistan categorically rejected opinion No. 47/2024. The measures taken had a clear legal basis, were court-authorized and complied with articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the proceedings had ensured the right to defence, the ability to participate effectively in the proceedings, judicial independence, a comprehensive and objective assessment of the evidence, and the right of appeal. It stated that the Working Group had exceeded its mandate by conflating categories II and III, assessing trial fairness without a separate article 14 analysis, reviewing domestic forensic psychiatric procedures and institutions, relying on a presumption of political discrimination, making generalized findings about the psychiatric care system, classifying the detention under category V on the basis of assumed political discrimination, and issuing recommendations on investigations, accountability and legislative reform, which the Government considers to belong to the State’s sovereign prerogatives.

In a note verbale dated 28 July 2025 concerning opinion No. 49/2024, the Government of Algeria noted that Ihsane El Kadi had committed acts having no connection with journalism. He had been prosecuted and tried in accordance with the law and the principles of legality, fair trial and respect for human rights. He had been granted the right to defence, reasonable time, an impartial judiciary, the presumption of innocence and access to remedies. His arrest was in compliance with international law. Mr. El Kadi had been pardoned and released on 31 October 2024.

In a note verbale dated 19 November 2025, the Government of Viet Nam rejected the findings of opinions No. 51/2024 and No. 30/2025 and stated that the opinions were based on inaccurate and unverified information. The arrests and trials of Nguyen Lan Thang, To Hoang Chuong and Thach Cuong had complied with Vietnamese law, had been approved by the competent authorities through strict criminal procedures and were consistent with the international obligations of Viet Nam. The trials had been necessary and lawful and had ensured fairness and objectivity. The detainees would be released upon completion of their sentences.

In a note verbale dated 11 September 2025, the Government of Tunisia noted that opinion No. 61/2024 had not taken into consideration the State’s response. Abir Moussi had been imprisoned to serve sentences imposed by competent, impartial and independent courts in accordance with national and international law. Her prosecution and trial were based on acts falling under the criminal law and found to be well established. Describing them as discriminatory was contrary to the facts. The judicial proceedings had fully complied with fair trial guarantees.

In a note verbale dated 1 September 2025 concerning opinion No. 64/2024, the Government of Qatar categorically rejected the findings in the opinion and affirmed that Matthew Alexander Pascoe had enjoyed all rights, including the right to defence and to translation. He had been arrested pursuant to an arrest and search warrant on the basis of information indicating that he was involved in drug use and trafficking. He had been presented before the prosecution within the legally prescribed time frames and had admitted the charges. The prosecution and the court had ordered the continuation of his detention. Judicial investigations had found no evidence of coercion or torture. Mr. Pascoe was serving a 15-year sentence in a correctional institution, until 27 November 2026.

In notes verbales dated 29 October 2025, 21 April 2026, 28 July 2026 and 29 July 2026, the Government of Saudi Arabia rejected the findings in opinions No. 1/2025, No. 60/2025, No. 71/2026 and No. 77/2026 respectively, noting that in those opinions the Working Group had summarized the allegations of the sources in greater detail than 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. 1/2025, the Government stated that Mohsen Saleh Nasser al-Awlaki had been detained pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority, based on legal grounds and evidence proving that he had committed crimes. He had been detained in a recognized place of detention, and the detention order had been legally extended. On the day of his arrest, he had been informed of the reasons for his arrest and of his legal rights. The Specialized Criminal Court of Appeal had overturned the sentence handed down by the first instance court and had reduced the sentence to six years and six months of imprisonment, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the subsequent appeal. The Government stated that he was currently serving his sentence.
(b) With regard to opinion No. 60/2025, the Government stated that Muhammad bin Abdullah Ahmad Al-Faraj and Mohammed bin Hassan Abdulkarim Labad had been detained pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority. They had been notified of the reasons for their arrests and their legal rights and had been tried within a reasonable time. The Government stated that the law granted the investigating authority the right to prevent the accused from communicating with others for a specified period when exceptional investigative necessities required it, without prejudice to the right of the accused to communicate with family or their legal representation. There were no secret places of detention in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia upheld the laws on freedom of opinion and expression and guaranteed to every individual the exercise of that right, provided there was no infringement or violation of public order. Both individuals had been convicted of serious terrorist and criminal acts that had threatened national and international security. The Government noted that the Specialized Criminal Court was an independent and impartial court, established by a decision of the Supreme Judicial Council. Trials were held within a reasonable time frame in the presence of the accused, their legal representatives and the public prosecutor. The procedures followed in the case of the aforementioned individuals were consistent with the provisions of all key international human rights instruments.
(c) With regard to opinion No. 71/2025, the Government affirmed that the three individuals who were the subjects of the opinion had been arrested and tried for committing criminal acts punishable under the Law on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, on the basis of evidence, facts, and items seized that had been found in their possession, and not because of their nationality or personal circumstances; they were subject to the same judicial procedures applied to all defendants and convicted persons in similar cases, without discrimination between citizens and non-citizens. The Government noted that article 37 of the Law on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances defined the criminal offences and the penalties prescribed for them. The Working Group’s disagreement with the nature of the penalties prescribed did not negate the legal basis for arrest and detention or render such detention arbitrary. The death penalty was to be imposed only for the most serious crimes and as a measure of last resort. The Supreme Court had issued rulings upholding the sentences handed down against the three individuals. The sentences had become final and had been enforced.
(d) With regard to opinion No. 77/2025, the Government reiterated that Ahmed Ali al-Doush had been arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority, following evidence becoming available proving that he had committed terrorist offences punishable under the Law on Combating Terrorist Offences and the Financing of Terrorism. He was being held at the General Investigation Directorate prison in Riyadh, a designated and recognized place of detention. The Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Riyadh had been notified at the time of his arrest and detention. Mr. Al-Doush had been afforded all legal rights, including the right to challenge the lawfulness of an arrest or detention, the right to receive consular visits, and the rights to medical care, the right to the presumption of innocence and the right of due process. The acts carried out by Mr. Al-Doush bore no relation to the right to freedom of opinion and expression and could not be justified on the grounds that they were of a political, ideological, religious or any other such nature. The case had been heard by the Specialized Criminal Court – an independent and impartial court – in a fair and public trial. The Government noted that Mr. Al-Doush was serving his sentence at the General Investigation Directorate prison in Riyadh in accordance with the final judicial ruling by the Supreme Court.

In a note verbale dated 1 December 2025 concerning opinion No. 2/2025, the Government of Tunisia rejected claims that the detention of Bechir Akremi lacked a legal basis. The proceedings had been conducted by competent and impartial judicial bodies. Mr. Akremi had been afforded all fair trial guarantees – including being informed of the offence, the right to defence, proceedings being carried out in a timely manner, and medical care. The Government stated that anti‑terrorism legislation and the judiciary in Tunisia complied with international standards. Requests for immediate release and compensation undermined sovereignty and judicial independence, disregarded unexhausted domestic remedies and were not based on facts.

In a note verbale dated 10 December 2025 concerning opinion No. 3/2025, the Government of Algeria noted that Yacine Cheref had been investigated, charged and prosecuted for various crimes. Allegations that his physical integrity had been violated by the police were unfounded. Mr. Cheref had had access to a lawyer and had been released on 5 June 2025 after serving a one-year sentence. The Government stated that compensation proceedings were premature as his conviction remained subject to an appeal. He had benefited from all fair trial guarantees since his arrest.

In a note verbale dated 2 March 2026 concerning opinion No. 13/2025, the Government of Equatorial Guinea reported that 37 citizens had been prosecuted and convicted by the competent courts for the crimes of sedition and rebellion. The judicial proceedings had guaranteed their rights to a defence, to legal assistance and to legal remedies. The 37 citizens concerned had been granted a presidential pardon as a measure of clemency, not as recognition of procedural irregularities. This did not create a right to compensation.

In a note verbale dated 11 August 2025, the Government of Uzbekistan disagreed with the findings in opinion No. 17/2025, stating that the Working Group had relied mainly on information from the source that had not been properly verified, and had not fully taken into account the official explanations, and that the opinion contained factual inaccuracies. The Government’s response, submitted on 18 March 2025 – one day after the deadline – had not been adequately reflected in the opinion’s conclusions, violating the principle of equality of the parties. The Working Group had exceeded its mandate by effectively re-evaluating a criminal case rather than assessing the arbitrariness of detention. The Government stated that the conclusions of the Working Group under category I regarding Ms. Karimova’s legal status were legally and factually erroneous. Her criminal prosecution was exclusively legal in nature, had no political motivation, and had been in compliance with fair trial guarantees.

In a note verbale dated 28 January 2026 concerning opinion No. 18/2025, the Government of Kazakhstan affirmed that its legislation guaranteed the protection of fundamental rights, subject to restrictions in the interests of national security, public order, health and the rights of others. The Government stated that Marat Zhylanbaev was serving his sentence for participation in a movement designated as an extremist organization which had been banned in 2018.

In a note verbale dated 10 December 2025, the Government of Egypt rejected the findings of opinion No. 25/2025. All measures taken against Oqba Alaa Labib Hashad and Seif el-Din Khaled el-Din Fateen had been lawful, had complied with fair trial standards and had been conducted under independent judicial supervision. Both individuals were being held in preventive detention, pursuant to the Public Prosecutor’s authorization.

In a note verbale dated 5 June 2025, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran noted that based on the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, Shahab Dalili, the subject of opinion No. 27/2025, had been lawfully sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of espionage for a hostile country. He had been provided with an arrest warrant and been informed of the charge. The claim that he was in solitary confinement was false.

In a note verbale dated 4 May 2026, the Government of Viet Nam categorically rejected the findings of opinions No. 44/2025 and No. 49/2025. The Working Group’s assessments had been based on unverified, incomplete and inaccurate information and the cases had not been considered objectively. The arrest, investigation, prosecution and trial of Nguyen Chi Tuyen and Phan Tat Thanh had been carried out in accordance with the law. All the criminal procedural decisions had been approved by the competent judicial authorities. The court hearings had been conducted transparently and objectively, in conformity with international law. The Government stated that both individuals had been guaranteed all rights. The detainees would be released immediately upon completion of their sentences.

In a note verbale dated 30 April 2026 concerning opinion No. 45/2025, the Government of Cambodia reiterated that Yusufu Mieraili had not been arrested by Cambodian authorities, but by Thai authorities in Sa Kaeo Province in Thailand.

In a note verbale dated 21 July 2026 concerning opinion 63/2025, the Government of Tunisia noted that Rached Kheriji was being held in a correctional facility because of his involvement in a number of criminal cases, some of which had resulted in court rulings imposing prison sentences on him. The legal proceedings, criminal charges and judgments rendered had been conducted within the framework of the law, with respect for the guarantees of a fair trial, and in full compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of Tunisia of 2022 and the international conventions and treaties ratified by the Tunisian State. The Government stated that his release, as well as his entitlement to compensation, remained solely within the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities. The opinion and the requests contained therein were inconsistent with the fundamental principles underpinning international law, namely respect for the sovereignty of States and for the independence of their judicial systems.

In a note verbale dated 22 July 2026 concerning opinion No. 68/2025, the Government of Cambodia informed the Working Group that matters concerning Koet Saray were being duly addressed through the ongoing judicial proceedings, including before the Supreme Court, in accordance with Cambodian law and applicable international obligations. Decisions concerning the deprivation of liberty or release of a convicted person fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent judicial authorities and were subject to due process of law.

In a note verbale dated 2 March 2026 concerning opinion No. 70/2025, the Government of Equatorial Guinea informed the Working Group that Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang was being held in pretrial detention, ordered by a competent judicial authority. It stated that the proceedings were taking place under judicial supervision and that he had access to remedies. Mr. Ndong Nlang was serving a sentence by virtue of a final judgment. Reparations were not warranted.

In a note verbale dated 14 July 2026 concerning opinion No. 72/2025, the Government of Bahrain affirmed that the arrests had been carried out in accordance with legal orders and warrants issued by the competent judicial authorities, following the completion of all investigative procedures. All those arrested had been brought before the Public Prosecution Service within the statutory time limits and could exercise all their rights. Allegations concerning the existence of “prisoners of conscience” and a systematic practice of torture or ill-treatment did not reflect the reality.

Requests for review of adopted opinions

The Working Group considered the requests for review of the following opinions:
Opinion No. 71/2024 (Saudi Arabia)
Opinion No. 17/2025 (Uzbekistan)
Opinion No. 63/2024 (Morocco)
Opinion No. 1/2025 (Saudi Arabia)
Opinion No. 20/2025 (Morocco)
Opinion No. 26/2025 (Saudi Arabia)
Opinion No. 28/2025 (Qatar)
Opinion No. 31/2025 (Saudi Arabia)

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 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:
Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov (opinion No. 62/2024, Uzbekistan).⁹

9. Mr. Tazhimuratov’s case has been addressed in opinion No. 62/2024, and in special procedure allegation letters UZB 2/2023, UZB 3/2024 and UZB 3/2025 which are available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. Reportedly, each international engagement was followed by an escalation of measures against him, affecting also his relatives. On 1 May 2026, he was convicted of “actions disorganizing the work of a penal institution” and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Under the rules in force in Uzbekistan on aggregation of sentences, he will serve an additional year and seven months in prison for the new conviction. ↩

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 2025, the Working Group sent urgent appeals and letters concerning more than 645 identified individuals. It sent 23 urgent appeals, of which 22 were sent to 15 Governments and one to other actors, concerning at least 37 identified individuals. It also sent 148 allegation letters and other letters, of which 132 were sent to 68 Governments and 16 to other actors, concerning at least 608 individuals.

The States that received urgent appeals are: Belarus (5), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), Central African Republic (1), China (1), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (3), Iraq (1), Lebanon (1), Malaysia (1), Myanmar (1), Kazakhstan (1), Singapore (1), Thailand (1), Togo (1), Türkiye (1) and United Arab Emirates (2).

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 to them, 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 letters and other letters are: Algeria (4), Angola (2), Argentina (1), Azerbaijan (2), Bangladesh (3), Belarus (4), Benin (1), Bhutan (1), Burundi (1), Cambodia (3), Canada (1), Cameroon (1), China (6), Côte d’Ivoire (2), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (1), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), Dominican Republic (1), Ecuador (2), Egypt (7), El Salvador (4), Equatorial Guinea (1), Estonia (1), Gabon (1), Georgia (1), Honduras (1), India (4), Indonesia (1), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (1), Italy (1), Jordan (1), Kazakhstan (1), Kenya (1), Kyrgyzstan (1), Lao People’s Democratic Republic (1), Libya (1), Malaysia (1), Mali (4), Malta (1), Mexico (3), Morocco (3), Mozambique (1), Nicaragua (2), Niger (1), Nigeria (1), Pakistan (4), Panama (1), Philippines (1), Qatar (1), Republic of Korea (1), Russian Federation (4), Serbia (1), Singapore (1), Spain (2), Sudan (2), Syrian Arab Republic (1), Thailand (2), Togo (1), Tunisia (3), Türkiye (6), Turkmenistan (2), Uganda (1), Uzbekistan (2), United Arab Emirates (2), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1), United Republic of Tanzania (1), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2), Viet Nam (5) and Zambia (1).

The Working Group wishes to thank those Governments that responded to its appeals and letters and that provided 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.

Owing to the current financial constraints preventing the Working Group from undertaking two country visits per year, the Working Group conducted a strategic prioritization exercise to inform the selection of country visit requests for the forthcoming years.

Responses of Governments to requests for country visits

In 2025, the Working Group continued its dialogue with the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea regarding potential dates for a country visit. On 14 May 2025, the Working Group informed the Permanent Mission that owing to the current liquidity crisis affecting the United Nations Secretariat and the special procedures, it was unable to secure the necessary funds to undertake the country visit in 2025. The Working Group 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. On 6 August 2025, the Working Group proposed that the visit take place from 23 November to 4 December 2026. On 14 January 2026, the Permanent Mission informed the Working Group that the Republic of Korea had accepted the Working Group’s proposal for the visit to take place on those dates.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has described transnational repression as “acts conducted or directed by a State, or its proxy, to deter, silence or punish dissent, criticism or human rights advocacy towards it, expressed from outside its territory”.¹⁰ Transnational repression often entails violations of due process guarantees applicable to arrest, prosecution, expulsion and/or extradition, and thus lies within the remit of the Working Group.

10. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1-en.pdf, p. 1. ↩

States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bear obligations in respect of any person within their jurisdiction, power or effective control, even when that person is located outside their territory, is stateless or is a national of another State.¹¹ Acts of transnational repression give rise to obligations on the part of the requesting State that orders or directs them and the host State that conducts, facilitates or acquiesces in them. Articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant, the prohibition of refoulement under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,¹² as well as procedural guarantees attached to expulsion and extradition,¹³ and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,¹⁴ are all directly relevant. Addressing these protection concerns requires consistent and good-faith application of the existing legal framework to cross-border situations.

11. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, para. 10. ↩
12. Ibid., para. 12; and A/HRC/48/57, paras. 38–60. ↩
13. A/HRC/48/55, para. 54; and opinions No. 11/2018, para. 53; No. 33/2020, para. 63; No. 42/2020, para. 60; No. 84/2020, para. 54; and No. 48/2021, para. 56. ↩
14. General Assembly resolution 53/144. ↩

Cases of transnational repression reveal three principal modalities. The first is physical: extraterritorial abductions and killings, forcible returns and renditions – sometimes carried out in cooperation between the authorities of the host and the requesting States. Transfer of a person from one State to another without judicial oversight does not constitute extradition, but extraordinary rendition, and is incompatible with international law.¹⁵

15. A/HRC/4/40, paras. 43, 50 and 51; and opinions No. 29/2006, para. 21; No. 11/2007, para. 15; No. 76/2023, para. 111; and No. 53/2025, paras. 89 and 90. ↩

The second modality is legal and is increasingly used as a substitute for direct physical action. It includes criminal prosecution in absentia – or pending the return – of political opponents, journalists and human rights defenders, in proceedings falling short of the guarantees enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant.¹⁶ It is typically accompanied by the improper use of extradition requests and INTERPOL Red Notices¹⁷ and/or by asset freezes, arbitrary deprivation of nationality, and criminalization of peaceful activities carried out abroad, through broadly framed national security or counter-terrorism legislation. The Working Group has characterized such proceedings as arbitrary deprivation of liberty under category III of its methods of work, since they are conducted in serious breach of fair trial guarantees,¹⁸ and also as engaging categories II and V, since they punish the exercise of fundamental freedoms and are discriminatory in their purpose.¹⁹

16. See opinion No. 28/2025. ↩
17. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/un-experts-concerned-weaponisation-interpol-red-notices-against-human-rights. ↩
18. Opinions No. 40/2024, para. 165; and No. 2/2015, para. 21. ↩
19. A/HRC/4/40, para. 47; and opinion No. 76/2023, paras. 101, 102 and 105. ↩

States must therefore not extradite, surrender or otherwise transfer individuals on the basis of an in absentia conviction (without the opportunity for an in-person retrial), or of pending criminal proceedings where there are substantial grounds to believe that the prosecution is motivated, in whole or in substantial part, by the person’s political opinions, human rights activities, journalistic work or membership in a minority group, or where the proceedings in the requesting State do not meet the minimum guarantees of independence, impartiality and due process.²⁰ In such situations, extradition operates not as an instrument of cooperation in criminal justice but as a tool of transnational repression, and engages the potential responsibility of the requested State for the resulting arbitrary deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment or other irreparable harm suffered by the individual in the requesting State.²¹ The same considerations apply to extraordinary renditions,²² to “disguised extraditions” through immigration or deportation procedures, and to the execution of INTERPOL Red Notices issued in disregard of article 3 of the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization – INTERPOL. Requested States are obliged to refuse such requests, to provide effective domestic remedy permitting the person concerned to challenge them, and to ensure full respect for the principle of non-refoulement.

20. Opinion No. 76/2023, para. 113; A/HRC/4/40, paras. 47, 49 and 50; and A/HRC/48/55, para. 59. ↩
21. A/HRC/48/55, para. 60; and opinion No. 76/2023, para. 114. ↩
22. A/HRC/4/40, para. 50. ↩

The third modality is digital: targeted surveillance through commercial spyware, hacking of devices and accounts, coordinated online harassment, digital threats, and other forms of digitally enabled intimidation, amplified and expanded by the availability of AI, including against in-country relatives and associates, which together produce a powerful chilling effect.²³ This frequently involves violations of the rights to privacy, family life, freedom of thought, expression and association, participation in public affairs, and liberty and security of person, and can be deployed in combination with the previous two modalities.

23. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1-en.pdf; and A/HRC/56/53, paras. 34–37. ↩

Transnational repression also frequently takes the form of proxy punishment of in-country relatives or associates.²⁴ Deprivation of liberty for such “guilt by association”, which is incompatible with the principle of individual criminal responsibility, inherently lacks a legal basis and is discriminatory, engaging categories I and V.²⁵ Non-State actors can also play a role in transnational repression, at the request of or with the acquiescence of a State.²⁶ The duty to comply with international human rights standards rests with all State organs, officers and agents, as well as with all other natural and legal persons.27 17 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/un-experts-concerned-weaponisation-interpolred-notices-against-human-rights. 18 Opinions No. 40/2024, para. 165; and No. 2/2015, para. 21. 19 A/HRC/4/40, para. 47; and opinion No. 76/2023, paras. 101, 102 and 105. 20 Opinion No. 76/2023, para. 113; A/HRC/4/40, paras. 47, 49 and 50; and A/HRC/48/55, para. 59. 21 A/HRC/48/55, para. 60; and opinion No. 76/2023, para. 114. 22 A/HRC/4/40, para. 50. 23 See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1en.pdf; and A/HRC/56/53, paras. 34–37. 24 See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1en.pdf p.2 25 See opinions No. 4/2012, No. 47/2012, No. 34/2013, No. 35/2013, No. 36/2013, No. 33/2017 and No. 38/2018. 26 See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1en.pdf. 27 Opinions No. 27/2021, para. 61; No. 11/2022, para. 62; No. 48/2023, para. 55; and No. 42/2024, para. 63. GE.26-10910

24. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1-en.pdf p.2 ↩
25. See opinions No. 4/2012, No. 47/2012, No. 34/2013, No. 35/2013, No. 36/2013, No. 33/2017 and No. 38/2018. ↩
26. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1-en.pdf. ↩

The Working Group has issued multiple opinions concerning the deprivation of liberty of individuals abducted abroad and handed over to the requesting State without due process.²⁸ It has found such detentions to be arbitrary, citing deficiencies in extradition procedural safeguards, judicial oversight, human rights risk assessments in the requesting State, and compliance with non-refoulement obligations. The host State’s role, whether through active participation or acquiescence, has been treated as engaging its responsibility alongside that of the requesting State. Cases involving the sole responsibility of the requesting State in cross-border abduction and transfer have also been the focus of the Working Group’s opinions.²⁹ Earlier opinions already foreshadowed these conclusions in cases involving the transfer of individuals, without procedural guarantees, to States where they faced a real risk of grave human rights violations.³⁰ Any deprivation of liberty resulting from an extraterritorial abduction, from a forcible return carried out without the procedural safeguards required by international law, from a criminal prosecution conducted in absentia in retaliation for the exercise of fundamental freedoms, or from a process that violates the principle of non-refoulment, is arbitrary within the meaning of categories I, II, III and V.

28. See opinions No. 42/2020, No. 48/2021, No. 20/2023, No. 25/2022, No. 27/2022, No. 76/2023, No. 45/2025 and No. 51/2025. ↩
29. See, for example, opinions No. 81/2021 and No. 53/2025. ↩
30. See opinions No. 34/2011, No. 57/2013, No. 2/2015, No. 60/2016 and No. 11/2018. ↩

The Working Group calls on host States to prevent and investigate instances of transnational repression committed by or against individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction, and refrain from any participation in or facilitation of extraterritorial abductions, extraordinary renditions or any other form of informal or illegal transfers; to refuse extraditions or expulsions which fail to comply with procedural guarantees established in international law and/or which relate to a pending or in absentia criminal prosecution that is motivated by discrimination or by the exercise of fundamental rights, or that is otherwise incompatible with article 14 of the Covenant; to apply the principle of non-refoulement unconditionally where individuals face a substantial risk of persecution, torture, enforced disappearance, arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty, flagrant denial of justice or other serious human rights violations; and to ensure that any cooperation in criminal matters is subject to genuine judicial oversight, public hearings and full procedural guarantees. Requesting States are reminded that prosecutions in absentia (without the opportunity for an in-person retrial), the deprivation of nationality of persons abroad, proxy punishment of in-country relatives or associates and the criminalization of peaceful activities carried out abroad cannot lawfully form the basis of a deprivation of liberty. States should apply additional vetting regarding INTERPOL Red Notices and diffusions.³¹ The Working Group will continue to give particular attention to communications, urgent appeals and individual cases falling within the scope of transnational repression.

31. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/transnational-repression-1-en.pdf. ↩

In 2025, the Working Group adopted 78 opinions, concerning 210 persons in 38 countries.

The Working Group continues to observe a low response rate from States under its regular communications and follow-up procedures. States provided a timely response to the Working Group’s communications in 46% of the cases in which it adopted an opinion in 2025 but provided follow-up information in only 26% of cases. The Working Group received follow-up information from sources in approximately 85% of the cases in 2025.

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 60/8, 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, including that of arbitrary detention and transnational repression.

The Working Group reiterates its call to States to continue to increase their cooperation by responding to regular and other communications, by reporting through the follow-up procedure on the implementation of the Working Group’s opinions and by responding positively to requests for country visits.

The Working Group calls on all States, when acting as host States, to refrain from any participation in or facilitation of extraterritorial abductions, extraordinary renditions or any other form of informal or illegal transfers, and to ensure that any cooperation in criminal matters is subject to genuine judicial oversight, public hearings and full procedural guarantees.

Requesting States are reminded that prosecutions in absentia (without the opportunity for an in-person retrial), the deprivation of nationality of persons and the criminalization of peaceful activities carried out abroad cannot lawfully form the basis of a deprivation of liberty.

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