A/HRC/13/40/Add.1 O. Malaysia 1. Urgent appeal sent on 21 April 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (a) Allegations transmitted to the Government 177. The Special Rapporteurs raised concern on information they had received concerning the situation of Mr. P. Uthayakumar, Legal Adviser of the Hindu Human Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), Mr. M. Manoharan, Counsel of HINDRAF, Mr. R. Kenghadharan, Counsel of HINDRAF, Mr. V. Ganabatirau and Mr. T. Vasanthakumar, members of HINDRAF. Since their arrest on 13 December 2007 under Section 8 (1) of the Internal Security Act for allegedly carrying out activities that threatened national security, they were allegedly denied their right to worship, did not have access to temples and prayer rooms and no time to worship had been allocated to them. Summaries of this communication as well as observations of the Special Rapporteur are already reproduced in A/HRC/10/8/Add.1, paras. 144-145. (b) Response from the Government dated 19 December 2008 178. On 19 December 2008, the Government of Malaysia replied to the communication of 21 April 2008.3 In its letter, the Government informed that the Hindu Human Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) was a non-registered society. The Government furthermore pointed to the activities of HINDRAF carried out at the end of 2007 which led to the arrest of Mr. P. Uthayakumar, Mr. M. Manoharan, Mr. R. Kenghadharan, Mr. V. Ganabatirau and Mr. T. Vasanthakumar under section 8 (1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 on the grounds that they were a threat to public order and security. The Government further informed about the placement of the above-mentioned individuals in the Detention Protection Center Kamuntin, Taiping, Perak, and about the conditions of their detention. The Government stated that the allegation that they were denied their right to worship was absolutely untrue. All detainees were allowed to pray and practice their respective religion. A religious teacher was also available every week for each religion, including Hinduism. For the Hindus, their religious lecture was scheduled on Wednesday every week. However, no worship at a temple outside the Detention Protection Centre was allowed due to security reasons. (c) Observations of the Special Rapporteur 179. The Special Rapporteur is grateful that the Government replied to the joint urgent appeal of 21 April 2008. 3 44 The Government’s reply was received by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 6 April 2009; see also the communications report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (A/HRC/11/41/Add.1, para. 188).