A/HRC/25/60/Add.2 observers who had intended to observe the trial on 4 March 2013 were reportedly prevented from entering the UAE and other trial observers who had completed procedural requests were allegedly denied access to the trial on 11 March 2013. Furthermore, there have been allegations of torture, or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as far back as the defendants’ court appearance in 2012. Medical examinations have been ordered by the judge, but it is reported that no investigation has taken place with regard to these allegations. In its reply, the Government of the United Arab Emirates stated that the case of the 94 detainees, which includes the 69 individuals in this communication, is one single case and has been decided by the Federal Supreme Court on 2 July 2013. The Government claimed that the communication sets out a version of events related to this case that is far removed from the truth and unfounded in many respects, and categorically denied the allegations in the strongest terms. The Government stated that the 69 individuals were not part of a peaceful association calling for political debate, but were members of an organization aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Government further stated that the charges against the individuals are compatible with international human rights principles, which restrict freedoms of expression and association when such activities threaten national security, public safety or public order. The Government stated that arrest warrants were issued for all the accused and that charges were immediately communicated to them. Additionally the Government stated that the accused were entitled to telephone contact with their families three times per week and allowed regular family visits. The Government claimed that the trial was executed in accordance with due process guarantees and that a special chamber was set up by the court to accommodate 500 observers. The Government denies allegations of abuse of the individuals mentioned in this communication, and that the conditions of the accused were reportedly satisfactory and observed by the Emirates Human Rights Association. Additionally, the Government explained that no evidence of any mistreatment could be found and that these allegations have been addressed by the Court and found to be without merit. 161. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government did not provide sufficient documentation of the investigation into the allegations of torture and ill-treatment in connection to this case, including the alleged incommunicado detention of Mr. Ahmed Ghaith al-Suweidi. The Government’s reply does not explain the Court’s findings nor the measures taken to impartially and independently investigate the allegations of torture and ill-treatment. He urges the Government to take persistent, determined and effective measures to have all allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment investigated promptly, effectively and impartially by an independent, competent domestic authority, as well as whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that such an act has been committed; to hold persons who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate such acts responsible, to have them brought to justice and punished in a manner commensurate with the gravity of the offence, including the officials in charge of the place of detention where the prohibited act is found to have been committed according to paragraph 7b of the Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23. (d) UA 07/11/2013 Case no. ARE 5/2013 State reply: None to date Alleged torture, illtreatment, and deteriorating health conditions of several detainees belonging to the UAE 94 group and their legal counsel. 162. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the United Arab Emirates has not responded to this communication, thereby failing to cooperate with the mandate issued by the Human Rights Council. The communication referred to the alleged torture of detainees belonging to the “UAE 94” group, whose members were the subject of a previous urgent appeal on 5 August 2013. The communication specifically referred to Mr. Waleed al Shehhi, a member of the UAE 94 legal team during their 2013 trial; UAE 94 members Dr. Mohammed al-Mansoori, Mr. Ali al-Kindi, Mr. Ahmed al-Qobaisi and Mr. Jumaa al-Felasi, 118