Date Type Case No Country Mandate(s) Summary of the allegation transmitted KEN 3/2015 24/04/2015 Kenya JAL Freedom of expression; Human rights defenders; Allegations of threats made against a human rights defender and the risk of deportation of another human rights defender. According to the information received, on 12 March 2014, the High Court of Kenya declared the presence of Ms. Lucy Elizabeth Hannan, the co-director of InformAction, a human rights organization, as “contrary to national interest”. Between February 2014 and November 2014, Ms. Hannan did not possess legal status in Kenya; she was later granted a temporary work permit. On 15 October 2014, several civil society members, including Mr. Maina Kiai, director of InformAction and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, were verbally attacked in a parliamentary debate by a Member of Parliament. On 19 October 2014, a threat against Mr. Kiai’s life was posted on his mandate’s official Facebook page. Serious concerns are expressed that the threats against Mr. Kiai, including during a parliamentary debate, and the harassment and the risk of deportation of Ms. Hannan may be linked to their peaceful and legitimate human rights work in the country. Mr. Maina Kiai was the subject of two previous communications sent on 23 September 2013, see A/HRC/25/74, case no. KEN 6/2013, and on 15 January 2008, see A/HRC/10/12/Add.1, para. 1489-1491. Ms. Hannan was the subject of a previous communication sent on 4 April 2014, see A/HRC/27/72, case no. KEN 4/2014. MAR 1/2015 24/04/2015 Maroc AL Disappearances; Allégations selon lesquelles les enquêtes de l’Instance équité et réconciliation (IER) et du Conseil consultatif des droits de l’homme (CCDH) ne seraient pas adéquates. Selon les informations reçues, le rapport du CCDH se contente de reconnaître le décès des personnes disparues sans fournir de preuves concrètes. De plus, il est allégué que, concernant des allégations de disparitions forcées, l’IER et le CCDH n’auraient fourni que des informations vagues et invérifiables qui ne répondraient pas aux attentes des familles des disparus. Reply A/HRC/30/27 35