A/HRC/27/38 2. Morocco 42. Ali Aarrass, whose case was mentioned in my previous report,60 has reportedly continued to be subjected to acts of intimidation and reprisal. After his prison cell had been searched and his personal correspondence confiscated, Mr. Aarrass announced in an open letter of 15 July 2013 that he was going on an indefinite hunger strike in protest at his treatment in prison. Mr. Aarrass was told by the prison director that he could make his life impossible, and was denied access to the courtyard, e-mail, telephone and the shower. On 25 July 2013, Mr. Aarrass reportedly intensified his hunger strike by refusing water, causing his health condition to deteriorate.61 The Government responded to the joint communication sent by special procedures by a letter dated 4 September 2013, in which it gave a detailed overview of all the steps taken by the authorities in the case.62 On 19 May 2014, during its fifty-second session, the Committee against Torture adopted a final decision on the case of Mr. Aarrass, in which it decided that Morocco was in violation of article 2, paragraph 1, and articles 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.63 3. Russian Federation 43. As noted in my previous report, 64 several United Nations human rights experts have expressed concern at the law on non-governmental organizations which carry functions of foreign agents”, adopted in November 2012.65 Particular concern was raised by the Committee against Torture at allegations of reprisals against the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial and the Public Verdict Foundation via that law. On 23 December 2013, the Committee expressed grave concern after a Russian court ordered Memorial to register as a “foreign agent”, allegedly owing to its political activities and foreign funding.66 Replies to letters by the special procedures and the Committee were received on 9 August 2013 and 19 February 2014 respectively. In them, the Government indicated that the “activities of Russian law enforcement authorities … are carried out in strict accordance with existing legal norms and have nothing to do with ‘reprisals’”, and that Russian legislation did not establish any legislative or administrative barriers restricting activities of non-commercial organizations. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in her report of 3 March 2014,67 reiterated serious concern about the use of that law to target and intimidate human rights organizations which had engaged with the United Nations, its mechanisms and representatives in the field of human rights, in particular about the acts of reprisals against the Public Verdict Foundation and the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial. 4. Syrian Arab Republic 44. In my previous report reference was made to criminal charges brought against, and the incommunicado detention, torture and ill-treatment of, Mazen Darwish, Director of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, and Hussein Hammad Ghrer, Hani Al-Zaitani, Abdelrahman Alhamade and Mansour Al-Omari.68 Messrs. Alhamade and AlOmari have reportedly been released pending trial, but Messrs. Darwish, Ghrer and Al60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 A/HRC/24/29, para. 27. A/HRC/25/74, case MAR 2/2013. Ibid. CAT/C/52/D/477/2011, annex, para. 11. A/HRC/24/29, paras. 29–31. A/HRC/26/21, case RUS 13/2013. OHCHR press release, 23 December 2013. A/HRC/25/55/Add.3, para. 364. A/HRC/24/29, paras. 33–34. 15