A/HRC/16/47 procurement and stockpiling of weapons and explosives. Mr. al-Sudays was enabled to appoint a lawyer in conformity with article 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Follow-up to Opinions 12. By letter dated 8 March 2010, the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group requested the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office at Geneva to provide information on the current situation of the persons mentioned in Opinion No. 19/2005 (United States of America) as well as on the measures eventually adopted to give consideration to the Working Group’s recommendations. 13. By note verbale dated 12 July 2010, the Permanent Mission of the United States of America provided the Working Group with the requested information. According to the Government, the Working Group had issued its Opinion before any appellate opinion issued concerning the case at issue. Since then, the appellate process had yielded extensive analysis in consideration of the defendant’s claims. The Court of Appeals had thoroughly and exhaustively considered many of the same issues raised by the Working Group and concluded that the defendants could, and did, receive a fair trial in Miami (see Campa II, pp. 1142-1155). Classified information was treated appropriately and without prejudice to the defendants (see Campa III, pages 994-996). The defendants’ detention is not arbitrary, but based on the application of law by an independent judiciary in proceedings that give ample due process to them. 14. The Government further adds that the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences for two defendants and identified errors in the application of the sentencing guidelines requiring resentencing of the other three defendants. On remand, the trial judge reduced all three sentences. In two instances, defendants reached agreement with the prosecution on the sentence to recommend. In short, independent judicial review in this case ensured that sentencing was consistent with United States law, and led to reductions in three of the five sentences. The appellate process provided an opportunity for the courts to give consideration to the very issues noted by the Working Group. Accordingly, the Government urged the Working Group to dismiss this matter and remove it from its docket. 5. Communications giving rise to urgent appeals 15. During the period 16 November 2009 to 17 November 2010, the Working Group transmitted 102 urgent appeals to 56 Governments (including the Palestinian National Authority) concerning 844 individuals (2,774 men, 50 women, 2 boys). In conformity with paragraphs 22 to 24 of its methods of work,4 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. 16. During the period under review, 102 urgent appeals were transmitted by the Working Group as follows: 4 E/CN.4/1998/44, annex I. 9