A/HRC/7/4 page 11 committed the offences with which he had been charged. Both of them are Syrian citizens who joined a terrorist organization, which is an offence under Syrian law. The Syrian courts had competence to hear their cases and both persons were given a fair trial. 17. The Government further confirmed that Mr. Zammar received consular assistance from the German Embassy, as he has German as well as Syrian nationality. He has received regular visits to verify his state of well-being and has access to free health care. 18. Acting in conformity with paragraph 21 of its methods of work,5 the Working Group decided to maintain its Opinion No. 8/2007 (Syrian Arab Republic) given that the facts on which the request of review was based were not new and had been known by the Government and the Working Group at the moment it rendered its Opinion. 19. In connection with these cases, on 18 May 2007 the Working Group wrote to the Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva requesting information on the circumstances of Mr. Zammar’s arrest, detention, interrogation and subsequent transfer to Syria. On 23 May 2007 it also wrote to the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco requesting the same information. No response to these communications has been received. 20. In communications dated 14 February 2007 and 31 October 2007, the Government of Colombia requested the Working Group to review its Opinion No. 30/2006 (Colombia) in which the Working Group had considered the arbitrary detention of Ms. Natalia Tangarife Avendaño and seven other students of the University of Antioquia. The Government reported on 31 October 2007 that the eight students were already at liberty at the moment of the adoption of Opinion No. 30/2006 (Colombia) on 1 September 2006. The Working Group considered that in its reply to the Working Group before the adoption of the Opinion, the Government did not submit that information. 21. Acting in conformity with paragraph 21, paragraph (b) of its methods of work,6 the Working Group decided to maintain its Opinion, given that the facts had been known to the Government at the moment on which the Opinion was rendered. 5. Communications giving rise to urgent appeals 22. During the period 9 November 2006 to 30 November 2007, the Working Group transmitted 169 urgent appeals to 55 Governments concerning 1,348 individuals (799 men, 129 women, 119 boys, 4 girls and 297 unidentified persons). In conformity with paragraphs 22 to 24 of its methods of work,7 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 5 E/CN.4/1998/44, annex I. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.