A/HRC/18/19 80. The Special Rapporteur also stressed that the status of the investigation into the killing of the two defenders remains inconclusive. Recently, the Prime Minister made a public statement requesting that the investigation into the killings should resume. The Special Rapporteur further highlighted that it was important that the Government follow up on its public statements with action. 81. During the interactive dialogue with the current Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, at the seventeenth session of the Human Rights Council, the delegation of Kenya recalled that the Government had rejected the report of the previous mandate holder, Philip Alston, on his mission to Kenya. 5. Mauritania 82. With regard to the case of Biram Ould Dah Ould Abeid mentioned in my previous report,28 the Government of Mauritania responded, in a letter dated 4 May 2010,29 to the allegation letter of 22 February 2010 sent by several special rapporteurs. 83. In its response, the Government of Mauritania stated that the Chairperson of the National Commission of Human Rights had requested the Ministry of the Interior and Decentralization to extend the professional passport of Mr. Ould Dah Ould Abeid, then member of the Commission. However, the request was turned down because, as it was considered that Mr. Ould Dah Ould Abeid’s trip was for private purposes only, no travel authorization was issued by the Secretary-General of the Government for the trip. The Government also stated that Mr. Ould Dah Ould Abeid was working for the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement in Mauritania, an illegal organization in Mauritania, given that it has no legal existence in Mauritanian law. Despite this fact, the authorities said that Mr. Ould Dah Ould Abeid has always been able to travel on behalf of his organization without encountering any problem. The Government of Mauritania added that these allegations were unfounded. 84. Mr. Ould Dah Ould Abeid was the subject of two other communications, sent on 27 April30 and 29 December 2010.31 The Government responded to the latter on 10 February 2011.32 6. Myanmar 85. With regard to the cases of Tin Min Htut and U Nyi Pu included in my previous report,33 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, at its fifty-seventh session, adopted Opinion No.4/2010 on these two individuals, finding their detention arbitrary under categories II and III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group. The Working Group found their detention to be in contravention of articles 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group noted in its Opinion the roles of Mr. Htut and Mr. Pu as human rights defenders and that their detention and conviction were allegedly in relation to their acts of informing the United Nations about human rights violations. The Working Group also called on the Government to take the necessary steps to immediately release the individuals concerned and provide adequate reparations. The Opinion was adopted on 5 May 2010. 28 A/HRC/14/19, paras. 37 and 38. See A/HRC/16/44/Add.1, paras. 1519-1527. 30 Ibid., paras. 1528-1532. 31 A/HRC/17/30/Add.1, paras. 822-828. 32 Ibid., paras. 829-846. 33 A/HRC/14/19, para. 39. 29 14