The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) is a body of independent human rights experts that investigate cases of arbitrary arrest and detention. Arbitrary arrest and detention is the imprisonment or detainment of an individual, by a State, without respect for due process. These actions may be in violation of international human rights law.
The Working Group was established by resolution in 1991 by the former Commission on Human Rights. It is one of the thematic special procedures overseen by the United Nations Human Rights Council, and is therefore a subsidiary body of the UN.
The Working Group is mandated to receive and verify information from a variety of sources, in order to investigate cases of detention imposed arbitrarily, or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] Article 9 states: ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile’. In considering claims of arbitrary detention, the Working Group is not only guided by State national law, but other international legal instruments may also be relevant if accepted by the States concerned. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(1) states; “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be Deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”
The Working Group's role is to investigate individual cases of arbitrary detention, as well as situations where the conditions in a country prompt concern over widespread occurrences of arbitrary detention. It has an intentionally broad mandate, to allow flexibility, and allow anyone to seek its assistance. The Working Group may send urgent appeals to governments to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those allegedly detained, issues opinions on the compliance with international law and may also conduct fact-finding visits to countries. The Working Group also issue deliberations on issues, to assist States in avoiding behaviour that may enable arbitrary detention. Ensuring a communicative dialogue with Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations allows the Working Group to achieve success. The Working Group must work in coordination with other Human Rights Council mechanisms and is mandated to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence.[2]
The Working Group mandate reflects the commission's concerns regarding worldwide instances of detention without legal basis. The Commission on Human Rights entrusted the Working Group with the following mandate:
The mandate lasts for a period of three years, and was most recently extended for a further three-year period by Human Rights Council resolution 33/30 of 30 September 2016.[3]
The Working Group is composed of five independent experts. They are appointed in equitable geographical distribution from the following regions: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Other Countries, and South America and Caribbean.[4] Three sessions are held per year, each lasting between five and eight days.
The current members of the Working Group are:[5]
Ecuador 2020–2026
Zambia 2020-2026Former members include:
Australia 2015-2021
Mexico 2014-2020
Benin 2014-2020
Norway
Pakistan
Hungary
Spain
Chile
Senegal
France
India Senegal
Czech Republic
Paraguay
AlgeriaThe Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is tasked with acting on information of alleged cases of arbitrary detention. To fulfil this mandate, the Working Group may decide individual complaints of arbitrary detention, formulate deliberations to provide guidance on the interpretation of international standards related to detention circumstances and provide reports for the Human Rights Council. It may undertake country visits to achieve this.
The Working Group does not require the exhaustion of local remedies. However, its purpose is not to replace national courts.[4] This broadens its jurisdiction, as it allows the Group to bypass governments that may be stalling procedure.
Detention in itself does not necessarily violate human rights. Therefore, the Working Group must distinguish between lawful exercise of police power, and detention so lacking in lawful basis or otherwise unreasonable, that it must be considered arbitrary.[4]
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is unique in that its mandate expressly provides for the consideration of individual complaints. The Working Group is the only non-treaty-based UN human rights mechanism to investigate and decide individual complaints. Individuals anywhere in the world are therefore able to petition the Working Group for consideration. The Group acts on information submitted to it by individuals directly, their families, or through representatives of Non-governmental organisations.
The Working Group then sends communications to the Governments concerned, to clarify or bring attention to the case.[6] The Government is invited to respond to the allegations within 60 days, with its view on the issue. The Working Group then sends the reply to the source of the allegations, requesting more information. This process allows the Group to remain neutral in the information-gathering process.[7]
The Working Group has identified detention or imprisonment as arbitrary if it falls into one of the following categories;
Examples of this can include continued detention after the completion of a sentence, denial of the exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, violations of the right to a fair trial, asylum and immigration claims, or detention based on ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation, etc.[8]
Upon receiving information under this adversary procedure, the Working Group then adopts one of the following approaches;[9]
Upon evaluating contradicting evidence, such as between an individual claiming arbitrary deprivation of liberty and a government, the Working Group use a standard of 'convincing evidence', as opposed to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.[10] The informal nature of the Working Group can strengthen the position of the individual represented, by easing the objective burden of proof on them.
If the Working Group receives information that raises concern about the immediate wellbeing of an individual, then it may, at its discretion, pursue an urgent action. The source must provide sufficiently reliable information that the continuation of deprivation poses significant threat to the psychological or physical wellbeing to the individual.[4] The alleged situation may be time-sensitive in relation to loss of life or deportation. Rapid communication is sought with diplomats, such as the Foreign Minister (or equivalent). The Working Group request immediate action to ensure the detained person's right to life, as well as physical and mental integrity are respected.[11] This a purely humanitarian undertaking, and does not prejudice the Working Group's final opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty is indeed arbitrary.[6]
In order to fulfil its mandate, the Working Group may conduct country visits. These provide an opportunity for the Group to understand the specific situation prevailing in countries. The Group undertake one to three country visits per year, upon invitation from the Government concerned.[4] For example, in May 2017 the Working Group visited Argentina. In 2016 the Group visited the United States of America and Azerbaijan. The Group tend to visit between one and four countries per year.
On a country visit, members of the Working Group engage in a variety of tasks. These can include meeting with representatives of the executive, legislators, and other state officials. The Group also has the right to visit places of detention and have private discussions with detainees.[4] Country visits enable the Working Group to gain a greater understanding of the social, political and historical environment in each country, enabling them to create context-appropriate recommendations.
More generally, the Working Group seeks to encourage broader international understanding of arbitrary detention, and promote universal standards.[7] This is achieved through a more general advisory role, with the formulation of deliberations.[4] The Group formulates deliberations on general issues to assist States in safeguarding against the practice of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. For example, the Group have developed deliberations on issues relating to house arrest, psychiatric detention, deprivation of liberty subsequent to a conviction and resulting from the use of the internet, on rehabilitation through labour and situations regarding immigrants and asylum seekers. The Group have also provided legal analysis regarding the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and clarified the definition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law and the urgent appeals procedure.
The Working Group must submit Annual Reports to the Human Rights Council, summarising the previous year's activities. The report will express observations made while investigating cases and on field missions in differing countries. The report details the Working Group's reasoning behind legal insufficiencies, policies and judicial policies that are the cause of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and recommend best practice to safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.[12]
The Group functions as a quasi-judicial body.[10] The Group has no direct enforcement power of its own. Instead, it relies on communication among states, policy-makers and advocates to encourage governments to implement its recommendations.[7] Due to its reliance on the cooperation of states, it can be argued that this weakens the authority of the Group.
The opinions of the Working Group however are legally binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights laws, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is applicable to states that have ratified the Covenant.
The opinions of the Working Group are considered authoritative by some prominent international judicial institutions including the European Court of Human Rights.[13] The features of the Working Group arguably play a role in its success, as it allows it to provide a politically viable alternative to treaty-based human rights enforcement mechanisms.[7] The flexible mandate enables it to avoid direct political confrontation with governments, ultimately achieving more politically acceptable and lasting solutions to individual cases of arbitrary detention.[7] While the opinions of the Working Group are not binding on states, they can facilitate information sharing among non-governmental organisations and governments. This can in turn lead to an increase in government accountability.
A further criticism of the Group is that it has taken no steps toward creating a robust follow-up procedure, to apply pressure on states arbitrarily detaining individuals. Establishing a systematic follow-up procedure could ensure an even greater accountability on governments, acting as a name and shame process to pressure them into action. A follow-up procedure may also be beneficial for providing feedback for future policy decisions.[7] It could also aid non-governmental organisations in petitioning governments with unresolved cases. Having a record of resolved cases could help the Group to keep track of the status of detainees and any correlation between the action of the Working Group. Information and statistics drawn from this can be publicised, and help to increase outreach.
In 2012, the Human Rights Council requested the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to develop draft basic principles. These were to provide guidelines on remedies and procedures for anyone deprived of his or her liberty by arrest or detention to bring proceedings before court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his or her detention and order his or her release if the detention is not lawful.[14] The intention behind these were to assist states in fulfilling their obligation to avoid arbitrary deprivation of liberty.[15] States, treaty bodies, human rights institutions and non-governmental organisations were invited to submit details on the treatment of the right to bring such proceedings before a court, in their respective legal frameworks.[14] The text was adopted in April 2015.[16]
On 5 February 2016, the group released a report stating that Assange had been subject to arbitrary detention by the UK and Swedish Governments since 7 December 2010, including his time in prison in Britain and Sweden, on conditional bail, and in the Ecuadorian embassy. According to the report, Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation.[17] [18]
The UK and Swedish governments rejected the report.[19] Then-UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Philip Hammond, said the claim was "ridiculous" and that the group was "made up of lay people", and called Assange a "fugitive from justice" who "can come out any time he chooses".[20] UK and Swedish prosecutors called the group's claims irrelevant.[21] [22] The UK said it would arrest Assange should he leave the Ecuadorian embassy.[23] Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, stated that the finding is "not binding on British law".[24] United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein has claimed that the finding is based on international law.[25]
On 13 February 2018, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, while considering whether the arrest warrant issued against Assange should be upheld, rejected the findings of the Working Group, stating in part that "The group appears to have based its conclusions on some misunderstandings of what occurred after Mr Assange’s arrest." Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) Emma Arbuthnot did not find that Mr Assange's stay in the Embassy was "inappropriate, unjust, unpredictable, unreasonable, unnecessary or disproportionate."[26] [27]
In September 2021, shortly after Donziger was sentenced in a New York for petty contempt of court, the group determined that Donzinger's arrest was arbitrary and a violation of international law and called for his release. In reviewing the case, WGAD found a “staggering display of lack of objectivity and impartiality” on the part of the judges involved, particularly Federal District Court Judges Lewis A. Kaplan and Loretta Preska. The report stated that his sentencing was done in retaliation for Donziger’s work as a legal representative of indigenous communities in Ecuador. The group called on the US government to conduct a thorough investigation of the circumstances of Donziger’s prosecution and imprisonment and to “take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.”[28] [29] [30]
Donziger’s lawyer, Martin Garbus, stated that he would be using the group's report to demand Donziger’s release from house arrest.[31]