Datasets:

liyongsea

/

un_linebreak-5000

like 0

Human Rights and articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Thus his deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, as it falls under category II.

Rights. Thus his deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, as it falls under category II. 18. The source submits that Mr. Mavungo’s right to the international norms of due

18. The source submits that Mr. Mavungo’s right to the international norms of due process and guarantees to a fair trial have not been upheld during the period of his

process and guarantees to a fair trial have not been upheld during the period of his deprivation of liberty, in violation of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of

deprivation of liberty, in violation of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Mavungo was initially charged with sedition. Owing to the lack of evidence,

Rights. Mr. Mavungo was initially charged with sedition. Owing to the lack of evidence, the court dropped the original charge, but Mr. Mavungo was then charged with the more

the court dropped the original charge, but Mr. Mavungo was then charged with the more serious crime of rebellion. The source submits that the sudden alteration of the charges after

serious crime of rebellion. The source submits that the sudden alteration of the charges after Mr. Mavungo’s arrest, in the absence of any new evidence, underscores the arbitrary nature

Mr. Mavungo’s arrest, in the absence of any new evidence, underscores the arbitrary nature of the proceedings against him, even more so in view of his conviction without any

of the proceedings against him, even more so in view of his conviction without any evidence linking him to the supposed bag, flyer or explosives.

evidence linking him to the supposed bag, flyer or explosives. Response from the Government

Response from the Government 19. The Government of Angola has not responded to the allegations from the source,

19. The Government of Angola has not responded to the allegations from the source, sent to it on 19 August 2015. The 60-day time period for such a response has elapsed.

sent to it on 19 August 2015. The 60-day time period for such a response has elapsed. Discussion

Discussion 20. Paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work reads as follows: “Even if

20. Paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work reads as follows: “Even if no reply has been received upon expiry of the time limit set, the Working Group may

no reply has been received upon expiry of the time limit set, the Working Group may render an opinion on the basis of all the information it has obtained”. That means that the

render an opinion on the basis of all the information it has obtained”. That means that the lack of response by a State does not prevent the Working Group from issuing an opinion.

lack of response by a State does not prevent the Working Group from issuing an opinion. However, such silence does not mean that everything in the source should be considered as

However, such silence does not mean that everything in the source should be considered as established. The Working Group has to assess the prima facie reliability of the information

established. The Working Group has to assess the prima facie reliability of the information provided by the source.

provided by the source. 21. In the present case, it is worth noting that not only did the Government not respond

21. In the present case, it is worth noting that not only did the Government not respond to the allegations, but it also failed to respond to the urgent appeal issued on 28 September

to the allegations, but it also failed to respond to the urgent appeal issued on 28 September 2015. The Working Group regrets that an allegation concerning the critical condition of a

2015. The Working Group regrets that an allegation concerning the critical condition of a person in detention was not addressed by the Government that has custody of that person.

person in detention was not addressed by the Government that has custody of that person. The Government has failed to uphold the system of protection that was voluntarily designed

The Government has failed to uphold the system of protection that was voluntarily designed by the United Nations Member States, which is a serious failure on its part.

by the United Nations Member States, which is a serious failure on its part. 22. In the present case, different sources have provided clear, consistent and coherent

22. In the present case, different sources have provided clear, consistent and coherent information that is also available in the public domain. There is therefore no reason to

information that is also available in the public domain. There is therefore no reason to doubt the prima facie case that Mr. Mavungo, a human rights defender in Cabinda, was

doubt the prima facie case that Mr. Mavungo, a human rights defender in Cabinda, was arrested after having notified the authorities of a planned demonstration. He was not

arrested after having notified the authorities of a planned demonstration. He was not properly notified of the legal grounds for his arrest and detention. Two days later, he was

properly notified of the legal grounds for his arrest and detention. Two days later, he was informed that he was being charged with sedition. However, once presented to the judge,

informed that he was being charged with sedition. However, once presented to the judge, five days after his arrest, the court found that there was no prima facie evidence in support

five days after his arrest, the court found that there was no prima facie evidence in support of the charge. His case, however, was not dismissed. The following day, he was informed

of the charge. His case, however, was not dismissed. The following day, he was informed that the sedition charge had been dropped and that he was instead accused of rebellion. The

that the sedition charge had been dropped and that he was instead accused of rebellion. The alleged underlying facts supporting that accusation were held in a classified intelligence file

alleged underlying facts supporting that accusation were held in a classified intelligence file that was not disclosed to him. It was not until two months after Mr. Mavungo’s arrest that

that was not disclosed to him. It was not until two months after Mr. Mavungo’s arrest that his lawyer was informed of the charges against him. Mr. Mavungo had no access to his

his lawyer was informed of the charges against him. Mr. Mavungo had no access to his lawyer from the moment of his arrest or throughout his detention. Mr. Mavungo was tried

lawyer from the moment of his arrest or throughout his detention. Mr. Mavungo was tried and convicted for rebellion, and sentenced to six years in prison. In addition, he was

and convicted for rebellion, and sentenced to six years in prison. In addition, he was ordered to pay some court fees. His wife’s visits are limited. Moreover, she is required to

ordered to pay some court fees. His wife’s visits are limited. Moreover, she is required to pay for each visit, and she has to provide his daily meals.

pay for each visit, and she has to provide his daily meals. 23. The failure to notify persons who are arrested and subsequently detained of the

23. The failure to notify persons who are arrested and subsequently detained of the charges against them is a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human

charges against them is a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and leads to

Rights and article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and leads to arbitrary detention that falls under category I of the Working Group’s defined categories of

arbitrary detention that falls under category I of the Working Group’s defined categories of arbitrary detention. The Working Group is in no doubt that Mr. Mavungo’s current situation

arbitrary detention. The Working Group is in no doubt that Mr. Mavungo’s current situation matches the definition in category I. That is further reinforced by the court’s first ruling that

matches the definition in category I. That is further reinforced by the court’s first ruling that the initial charge was not supported by the evidence. Notwithstanding that finding, the

the initial charge was not supported by the evidence. Notwithstanding that finding, the victim was kept in detention and new charges were brought against him.

victim was kept in detention and new charges were brought against him. 24. Additionally, arresting and detaining individuals and not allowing them to benefit

24. Additionally, arresting and detaining individuals and not allowing them to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer constitutes a violation of their right to a fair trial, as

from the assistance of a lawyer constitutes a violation of their right to a fair trial, as established in articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9

established in articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recently restated in

and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recently restated in principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and

principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before

Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court. States cannot overlook the need for legal assistance when an individual is facing

a Court. States cannot overlook the need for legal assistance when an individual is facing criminal justice. That is a fundamental right that, if violated, results in an overall failing on

criminal justice. That is a fundamental right that, if violated, results in an overall failing on the part of the criminal justice system. Moreover, the lack of access to the evidence used

the part of the criminal justice system. Moreover, the lack of access to the evidence used against Mr. Mavungo constitutes another violation of the right to a fair trial, especially

against Mr. Mavungo constitutes another violation of the right to a fair trial, especially under article 14 (3) (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The

under article 14 (3) (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The seriousness of such violations supports the Working Group’s view that the present case

seriousness of such violations supports the Working Group’s view that the present case constitutes an arbitrary detention under category III.

constitutes an arbitrary detention under category III. 25. The series of events started with the notification by Mr. Mavungo of the

25. The series of events started with the notification by Mr. Mavungo of the demonstration that he had planned. His status as a human rights defender is not challenged.

demonstration that he had planned. His status as a human rights defender is not challenged. Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee freedom of

Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee freedom of opinion and expression and the right to peaceful assembly. Those same rights are enshrined

opinion and expression and the right to peaceful assembly. Those same rights are enshrined in articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. An

in articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. An individual cannot be detained for exercising those rights, which have been universally

individual cannot be detained for exercising those rights, which have been universally acknowledged as inherent to all human beings. As a result, in the view of the Working

acknowledged as inherent to all human beings. As a result, in the view of the Working Group, the present case constitutes an arbitrary detention within category II.

Group, the present case constitutes an arbitrary detention within category II. Disposition

Disposition 26. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

26. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of José Marcos Mavungo is arbitrary, being in violation of

The deprivation of liberty of José Marcos Mavungo is arbitrary, being in violation of articles 9, 10, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles

articles 9, 10, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls

9, 14, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within categories I, II and III of the categories referred to by the Working Group

within categories I, II and III of the categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.

when considering cases submitted to it. 27. Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the

27. Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government of Angola to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Mavungo

Government of Angola to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Mavungo and to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the Universal

and to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 28. The Working Group believes that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

28. The Working Group believes that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy would be to immediately release José Marcos Mavungo and to

case, the adequate remedy would be to immediately release José Marcos Mavungo and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation.

accord him an enforceable right to compensation. [Adopted on 3 December 2015]

14 July 2021 English

English Original: Arabic

Original: Arabic (E) 210721 020821

(E) 210721 020821 *2109791*

*2109791* Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East

Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons

Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

of Mass Destruction Second session

Second session New York, 29 November–3 December 2021

New York, 29 November–3 December 2021 Working paper submitted by the Syrian Arab Republic to

Working paper submitted by the Syrian Arab Republic to the second session of the Conference on the Establishment

the second session of the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other