A/HRC/10/21 page 11 No. 37/2007 (Lebanon) (A/HRC/10/21/Add.1, p. 79). After having carefully examined the contents of this letter, the Working Group decided, at its fifty-second session, not to grant the request. It considered that the letter neither contained entirely new facts on which the requests were based and such as to have caused the Working Group to alter its decision had it been aware of them (paragraph 21 (a) of the methods of work), nor that facts had not been known or had not been accessible to the Government (paragraph 21 (b) of the methods of work). The Working Group also wishes to highlight that, contrary to the statement of the Government of Lebanon in this letter that it would have appreciated if the Working Group had brought to its attention the information received from the source and upon which it based its Opinion No. 37/2007, the Working Group had indeed transmitted this information to the Government and received its reply as is reflected in the Opinion. 6. Follow-up on Opinions 14. The Working Group has, since 1992, been seized with innumerable allegations in relation to the practice of arbitrary detention resorted to by the Government of Myanmar. The Working Group has, on five occasions,3 pronounced itself on the consecutive and renewed detentions that have affected Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The Working Group is also aware of other cases of arbitrary detention which violate the human conscience, such as the case of the activist U Ohn Than forming the basis of Opinion No. 44/2008 (Myanmar). He also had spent a large part of his life in prison for calls for democracy for his country, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008 for a peaceful and solitary demonstration in his homeland. 15. These Opinions were adopted in light of the lack of cooperation by the government authorities with the Working Group, and with the Human Rights Council. The Working Group, therefore, requests the Council to take these circumstances into account. 7. Communications giving rise to urgent appeals 16. During the period 1 December 2007 to 30 November 2008, the Working Group transmitted 130 urgent appeals to 44 Governments concerning 1,256 individuals (603 men, 57 women, 4 boys, 3 girls and 589 unidentified persons). In conformity with paragraphs 22 to 24 of its methods of work (E/CN.4/1998/44, annex I), the Working Group, without prejudging whether the detention was arbitrary, drew the attention of each of the Governments concerned to the specific case as reported, and appealed to them to take the necessary measures to ensure that the detained persons’ right to life and to physical integrity were respected. When the appeal made reference to the critical state of health of certain persons or to particular circumstances, such as failure to execute a court order for release, the Working Group requested the Government concerned to take all necessary measures to have the persons concerned released. In accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/2, the Working Group integrated into its methods of work the prescriptions of the Code of Conduct relating to urgent appeals and has since applied them. 3 Opinion Nos. 8/1992 (E/CN.4/1993/24, p. 43), 2/2002 (E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.1, p. 50), 9/2004 (E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.1, p. 47), 2/2007 (A/HRC/7/4/Add.1, p. 56) and 46/2008.