A/HRC/22/44 opinion stated that Mr. El Hadj was arrested without a warrant when in fact there was a court order for his arrest. Furthermore, Mr. El Hadj enjoyed all the procedural safeguards common to the rule of law including the right to legal representation and to appeal. 14. According to the Government, the deportation of Mr. El Hadj did not contravene Spanish law as its premise was an order issued by the Criminal Court of Cartagena. The Government refuted the opinion, saying that there was no discrimination against Mr. El Hadj on the basis of national, ethnic or social origin. Mr. El Hadj’s deportation resulted from a prior conviction and the subsequent legal decision to deport him was within the ambit of the Spanish law. The Government also stated that the allegations relating to illtreatment had been a subject of an enquiry made by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and that the Government of Spain was preparing an official response thereto, a copy of which would be shared with the Working Group in due course. 15. By note verbale dated 10 December 2012 from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Government of Cuba rejected the Working Group’s opinion No. 69/2012 (Cuba) on the grounds that it was a biased and unbalanced assessment of the case and lacked a proper legal foundation. The Working Group’s decision stems from a fundamental flaw that prevents the analysis from being objective, since, having failed to find evidence of violations of due process or of a lack of procedural safeguards in the conduct of the trial, the Working Group instead challenges the entire Cuban judicial system. According to the Government, the Working Group is overstepping its mandate in acting as a body with the authority to determine whether the Cuban courts are independent and impartial and in seeking to dictate changes in the legislation of a sovereign State. 16. Cuba rejects all allegations of violations of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since the judicial proceedings provided all the safeguards available under Cuban law, in accordance with the principles on the independence of the judiciary recognized by the United Nations, to a person who infringed the law in a sovereign State and was duly convicted by a competent court. The Government also reserves the right to voice serious doubts as to whether the case was the subject of an impartial and objective analysis and discussion in view of the fact that the Group did not adhere to its standard procedures and time allotments. The unusual haste with which the examination of the case was completed and the insufficient assessment of the extensive information and evidence provided by the Cuban Government suggest that selective and politicized considerations interfered with the Working Group’s deliberations. This is a far cry from the objective and impartial approach that the Group should take to its work. This is in addition to the fact that it has overstepped its mandate as established in resolution 1997/50 of the Commission on Human Rights. 17. By note verbale dated 13 December 2012, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United Nations Office at Geneva rejected opinion No. 23/2012 (Cuba), adopted by the Working Group on 28 August 2012. It states that the Working Group clearly did not take due account of the information provided by the Government. It further states that Yusmani Rafael Álvarez Esmori and Yasmín Conyedo Riverón were not arrested for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression, but for breaking into a home, physically assaulting its occupants and injuring one of them. Both citizens had the benefit of full procedural safeguards while in prison. The Government regrets that selective and politicized considerations interfered with the examination of this case and expects the Working Group to fulfil its mandate in an objective and impartial manner. 12 GE.12-18935