Equatorial Guinea

What has happened

Since November 2025 the United States has flown people who are not Equatoguinean nationals to Equatorial Guinea. Monitoring organisations record six flights:

• 24 November 2025 — nine men, from Georgia, Mauritania, Angola, Ghana and Eritrea, who were “misled into believing they were merely transferring to another domestic facility.”
• 22 January 2026 — twenty people, six women and fourteen men, from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mauritania, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Chad.
• 29 April 2026 — two Cameroonians and one Egyptian.
• 18 June 2026 — eight people, including two Jamaican women and six men from Senegal, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda.
• 30 July 2026 — thirteen people, carried on two small jets.
• 20 August 2026 — thirteen more.

Third Country Deportation Watch counts fifty-three people across the first five flights, between November 2025 and July 2026, and records the August flight separately. It states no combined figure, and none is given here.

Among those on the August flight were four Cuban men, a Brazilian man and a Cameroonian woman who had refused to leave the aircraft at its previous stop in Liberia. According to their lawyer, they were told they would be returned to the United States. They were flown to Malabo instead.

Many, and on the evidence of the United Nations experts all of the first twenty-nine, held protection granted by a United States immigration judge — withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention against Torture. That is not a right to remain in the United States. It is a judicial finding that returning the person to their own country would more likely than not expose them to persecution or torture. Some had come to the United States as children.

They are held at the Bamy Hotel in Malabo, reported to be owned by the President’s family, and not at Black Beach prison. Equatoguinean law — Organic Law 3/2010 — limits the detention of foreign nationals to sixty days, within which the authorities must decide whether to return them or grant protection. Detainees have said they were told asylum was not available in Equatorial Guinea and that they would be returned once travel documents were obtained. Of the first twenty-nine, monitoring organisations record that all were subsequently sent onward.

How many remain is reported differently by different sources, and the figures are set out rather than reconciled. In July 2026 the Associated Press counted seventeen. In August the Arizona Daily Star reported twenty-seven then held, of about forty held at the hotel at some point, of whom at least seventeen had been wrongly deported onward. Later that month the Associated Press described “around 40” at the hotel.

On the night of Friday 31 July 2026, according to the Arizona Daily Star, dozens of armed and masked men said to be police officers entered the hotel and dragged five deportees from their rooms at gunpoint. Three of them — Peta-Gaye Chambers, Natalie Holmes and Ahmed Soliman, who each agreed to be named despite the risk — said they were handcuffed, assaulted and threatened, in retaliation for speaking to lawyers and to the press, for trying to record what happened at the hotel, and for objecting to breaches of their rights. Separately, in July 2026 lawyers reported that at least one suspected Ebola patient had been quarantined in the same hotel complex.

What the assurance actually said

Unlike the arrangements with Ghana and Eswatini, this one can be read. Equatorial Guinea’s embassy in Washington sent a Note Verbale on 2 October 2025, and the State Department published it in April 2026 under the reporting requirement for non-binding instruments. Its operative promise is this:

“[T]he Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea assures the Government of the United States of America that it will treat any third-country national transferred by the Government of the United States of America to Equatorial Guinea in a manner consistent with its international legal obligations and that third-country nationals transferred to Equatorial Guinea will not be subjected to persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or to torture, in Equatorial Guinea or in any other country to which the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea may subsequently transfer them.”

The final clause forbids in writing precisely what then happened.

The document also names the instruments Equatorial Guinea says it will observe — the 1951 Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, and the Convention against Torture. But the sentence is carefully built. Equatorial Guinea states that it “intends to” treat transferees consistently with those obligations, and the list closes with “any other international legal obligation; the Constitution, laws, regulations, and immigration and visa policies of Equatorial Guinea.” Domestic law sits in the same sentence as the treaties. Elsewhere the document says only that Equatorial Guinea “wishes to express its willingness to consider” accepting transfers, and it reserves to itself “the right to accept or reject the transfer of any person proposed by the Government of the United States of America.”

It is filed as a qualifying non-binding instrument. On its face it undertakes nothing, decides nothing in advance, and leaves each individual acceptance to Equatorial Guinea’s discretion.

What it does not contain is as telling. There is no limit on numbers, no duration or expiry, no monitoring mechanism, no reporting requirement, no United States access to the people transferred, and no remedy if the promise is broken. There is no mention of money anywhere in it. And although the reporting index describes an exchange of notes, the published file contains only Equatorial Guinea’s note. No United States note appears.

The instrument was concluded on 2 October 2025 and first reported to Congress on 30 April 2026. In the seven months between, two flights had gone and most of those aboard had already been sent onward.

There may be a second agreement, and it has never been produced

The Note Verbale above is dated 2 October 2025. It is the only instrument the United States has published. But it is not the instrument the government has relied on in court.

In Soliman v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, the government told a federal judge that the petitioner “is expected to be removed pursuant to a Third Country Removal Agreement that the Department of State signed with the Government of Equatorial Guinea on October 23, 2025” — a date three weeks after the published note, and three days after Equatorial Guinea’s Vice President announced the arrangement publicly. The representation was made in a signed Answer and supported by a sworn declaration from a Department of Homeland Security official.

The court recorded, in the same passage, that “Respondents did not submit a copy of this Third Country Removal Agreement.” The government relied on a document it declined to lodge. It filed objections to the resulting recommendation, running to a single sentence, and did not correct the date.

A search of the publicly accessible federal court record finds the date 23 October 2025 for this agreement and does not find 2 October 2025 anywhere. Two things follow, and only two. The record establishes what the United States told a court; it does not establish what was signed, because the instrument has never been produced. A transcription error in a government brief cannot be excluded. But if the two dates describe two documents, then the assurance the public can read is not the agreement the government relies on — and the operative one remains secret.

What the United Nations documented next

On 23 April 2026 eleven United Nations special procedure mandate holders wrote to Equatorial Guinea. Their communication records that since November 2025 at least twenty-nine people had been transferred from the United States “a pesar de que todas ellas eran beneficiarias” — despite every one of them holding withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or protection under the Convention against Torture, granted by United States immigration judges. On arrival they were held at the Bamy Hotel and not permitted to leave until arrangements had been made to expel them. Between January and February 2026, several were forcibly returned to their countries of origin or sent elsewhere.

The same communication records a Mauritanian man who had filed an asylum application in Equatorial Guinea and was returned to Mauritania regardless, “donde había sido víctima de detención arbitraria, tortura y amenazas por hacer campaña contra la esclavitud” — where he had been a victim of arbitrary detention, torture and threats for campaigning against slavery.

In early April 2026 ten people remained in Malabo. All had been recognised by United States immigration judges as facing persecution at home. On 9 April the Congolese national among them was deported to Congo-Brazzaville. The authorities were pressuring the nine who remained to accept transfer to other countries with no guarantee as to their protection or their situation on arrival.

On 15 June 2026 eight mandate holders wrote again. Equatorial Guinea had replied on 18 May, stating that it would meet its international obligations. The mandate holders acknowledged the reply and found that it did not address the substance — not the real risk of return, not the absence of access to lawyers, not the detention conditions.

Then they set out what had happened in the meantime. On 26 May people were told they would be expelled the next day. On 27 May five were put on a plane and forcibly removed to their countries of origin, among them two who had arrived only weeks earlier. Both had been persecuted by the army. Both held withholding of removal granted in the United States on a finding that persecution was “más probable que improbable” — more likely than not — if they returned. “A pesar de estas conclusiones”, the communication reads, “fueron expulsadas a Guinea Ecuatorial y posteriormente devueltas.” Despite those findings, they were expelled to Equatorial Guinea and then returned. No contact has been established with them since.

The mandate holders set out one of the two cases in detail. The public version of the document redacts every nationality and country, so this account carries none. A woman granted withholding of removal because of political persecution by the military police. Twice detained on suspicion of affiliation with Anglophone separatists and taken to prison, where she was held and tortured — “fue golpeada, violada y maltratada gravemente”, beaten, raped and severely ill-treated. She fled in August 2024, travelling first to Equatorial Guinea, where she escaped an attempted trafficking for sexual exploitation before leaving in October. In August 2025 a United States immigration judge granted her withholding of removal. She was released from immigration custody on 14 March 2026 under a federal habeas order, re-detained little more than a month later, and flown to Equatorial Guinea with no advance notice of where she was being taken. She arrived in Malabo on 29 April. She was held under guard at the Bamy Hotel, denied hygiene items and denied medical care when she fell ill, and was sexually harassed by one of the guards. She was forcibly transferred out on 27 May 2026. Nothing has been heard of her since.

On the conditions in which people are held, the April communication is specific. Nobody may leave the hotel under any circumstances; the only people who have left are those the authorities expelled. Two contracted malaria, one of them also typhoid. One was hospitalised with food poisoning. One person went three weeks without any treatment for hypertension. Serious mental health problems were documented, with no mental health care. Everyone was still wearing the clothes they arrived in, with no hygiene items provided; local lawyers supplied some as humanitarian aid. Everyone who arrived in January 2026 was barred from legal assistance outright, permitted to speak to lawyers only by personal telephone.

The mandate holders state their conclusion in the present tense: “las medidas adoptadas contravienen el principio de no devolución” — the measures taken contravene the principle of non-refoulement. Their reasoning on indirect return rests on the Committee against Torture’s General Comment No. 1 of 1997, which reads “another State” in Article 3 of the Convention as covering not only the state a person is sent to but any state to which that person may subsequently be sent. They describe non-refoulement as a peremptory norm of jus cogens — a characterisation they make in their own voice.

Both communications were copied to the Government of the United States.

How the arrangement was made, and what it cost

On 29 September 2025, in Washington, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau met Equatorial Guinea’s Vice President Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue. The State Department’s readout says the two “reaffirmed joint commitments to deepen commercial and economic ties, combat illegal immigration, and advance security cooperation.” It does not mention third-country nationals. Three days later the Note Verbale was sent. In October, according to the Spanish news agency EFE, Equatorial Guinea and the United States ambassador discussed “the need to maintain negotiations on trade tariffs to find balanced solutions that benefit both nations,” alongside economic ties following the signing of agreements in the hydrocarbons sector.

The Vice President is subject to United States visa restrictions arising from corruption prosecutions in France, the United States and South Africa.

On 10 November 2025 Senator Jeanne Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio about a payment of $7.5 million to Equatorial Guinea. She stated that it “used funding from the Migration and Refugee Assistance account making this the first ever government-to-government transfer of such funds, which are intended to respond to global refugee and humanitarian crises.” The account exists to help refugees overseas. The Associated Press reported the same, describing it as a payment “made from a fund for migration and refugee assistance.”

Two qualifications belong with that figure. It is Senator Shaheen’s account, reported by the Associated Press; the State Department declined to confirm the details, saying only that implementing the administration’s immigration policies is a priority. And both the letter and the news report move between past and prospective tense, so whether the money has been disbursed or remains proposed is not settled by either.

Senator Shaheen asked four questions. How the payment was a permissible use of the Migration and Refugee Assistance account. Whether an agreement existed, and whether it “was brokered with Vice President Obiang Mangue—an individual under visa restrictions by the United States.” How the Department would ensure the money did not facilitate corruption or enable human trafficking, citing the State Department’s own 2025 Trafficking in Persons Report, which raises as a “significant concern” the “corruption and official complicity in trafficking crimes” by Equatoguinean officials. And what protections existed for the people transferred — including whether the United States had received assurances that they would not end up in Black Beach Prison or Oveng Ansen Prison.

The agreement she asked about was published five months later. It answers none of her questions.

What the record says about Equatorial Guinea

Torture and ill-treatment by officials

The United States Department of State has recorded the same finding in three consecutive annual reports covering 2022, 2023 and 2024: local civil society organisations “claimed security forces tortured detainees in every prison in the country, including Black Beach Prison in Malabo,” with prisoner transfers between Malabo and the mainland “to avoid domestic and international scrutiny.” The 2023 edition sets out methods reported by lawyers and other prison visitors: “beatings, sleep deprivation, use of car batteries to shock and inflict pain, and withholding of food, liquids, and medical treatment.”

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, reviewing Equatorial Guinea in 2019 in the absence of any report from it, was “concerned at reports of the systematic use of torture by the police, especially in police stations, against persons who refuse to ‘cooperate’.” The only visit ever made by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in 2008, concluded that “torture is systematically used by the police” in Bata and Malabo. That finding is now old, and is set out here with its date rather than left to be discovered.

More recently the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has issued three opinions concerning Equatorial Guinea, including Opinion 70/2025 on the lawyer Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang, held incommunicado since March 2024, and Opinion 13/2025 concerning thirty-seven inhabitants of Annobón, which addressed the use of evidence obtained under torture.

Equatorial Guinea also has a documented record of arbitrarily detaining foreign nationals. The Global Detention Project records that in late 2021 security forces stopped people in the street “on the basis of ‘African foreign facial features,’ regardless of their immigration status, and detained those who could not immediately produce identification.” More than five hundred people, from Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, the Central African Republic, Chad and Mali, were detained across several cities. Dozens alleged severe beatings and ill-treatment; the vast majority received no legal assistance; others were deported without notice. In April 2022 Amnesty International called for the release of four West African men held in a Malabo police station since November 2021, far beyond the sixty-day limit set by Organic Law 3/2010.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2025 gives Equatorial Guinea a score of 15 out of 100, ranking it 172nd of 182 countries.

What Equatorial Guinea’s own system does not have

Equatorial Guinea joined the Convention against Torture in 2002. Its first report to the Committee against Torture was due in November 2003 and has never been filed — twenty-two years overdue. No document of any kind about Equatorial Guinea has ever been issued by that Committee.

At accession it expressly rejected the Committee’s power to open an inquiry. It has never accepted the Committee’s power to receive complaints from individuals. It is not a party to the Optional Protocol, so it has no national preventive mechanism and cannot be visited by the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. The State Department recorded in 2022 that “There was no independent monitoring of prisons or detention centers,” and in 2023 that “The government did not allow independent monitoring.”

It has no national human rights institution accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. It does not appear on the accreditation list at any level.

The assessment most favourable to Equatorial Guinea, and what it still says

Three things should be set against the above. The 2024 State Department report states that “Unlike in previous years, there were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings or enforced disappearances.” That is a material change from the previous edition and is recorded here. It sits, however, alongside the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s finding, issued in February 2026, of an enforced disappearance continuing since March 2024.

The same 2024 edition contains no prison-conditions section at all, where earlier editions described conditions as harsh and life-threatening. Nothing in the 2024 text says conditions improved; the section was removed. The same restructuring affected other country chapters that year.

Equatorial Guinea accepted thirteen recommendations on torture and detention at its 2024 Universal Periodic Review, including to investigate all allegations of torture. In the same review it rejected every recommendation to ratify the Optional Protocol and the enforced disappearances convention.

It also replied to the United Nations. Faced with a communication from eleven mandate holders in April 2026, it responded on 18 May expressing strong objection to the tone of the letter. The mandate holders’ assessment of that reply, in their follow-up communication of 15 June 2026, was that it did not address the specific allegations raised, in particular the real risk of refoulement, the reported lack of access to a lawyer, and the conditions of detention.

What this does and does not establish

The record establishes torture and ill-treatment by Equatorial Guinean officials against detainees in that country’s prisons and police stations, over a sustained period, documented by the United States government, United Nations bodies and monitoring organisations. It establishes that people transferred from the United States, holding judicial protection against return, have been sent onward to the countries they were protected from.

It does not establish that anyone transferred from the United States has been tortured at the Bamy Hotel. What is documented there is detention without a legal basis beyond the sixty-day statutory limit, obstruction of lawyers, inadequate medical care, and an armed assault on five detainees on 31 July 2026. No source reports that anyone transferred has died. Those distinctions are kept deliberately, because the argument does not need them blurred.

Which complaint routes are open

Several routes that practitioners reach for first are closed against Equatorial Guinea. Several that are less obvious are open. Each line below was checked against the depositary records on 7 September 2026.

Open

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Equatorial Guinea has been a party to the African Charter since 1986, and the Commission can receive communications. This is the route already being used: a complaint was filed on 5 June 2026 on behalf of fourteen people transferred from the United States, by the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, the Pan African Lawyers Union, EG Justice, Asian Americans Advancing Justice–Atlanta and the Global Strategic Litigation Council. It seeks provisional measures. Nothing has been reported as granted.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee. Equatorial Guinea acceded to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1987 and has never withdrawn. Individuals can therefore bring a communication to that Committee. Article 7 of the Covenant, which prohibits torture and ill-treatment, carries an obligation not to return a person to a place where they face it.

United Nations special procedures. These require no consent from the state and have been the fastest-moving route in this matter. Mandate holders acted on 23 April 2026, again on 13 May, and again on 15 June, and copied their communications to the United States.

Closed

The Committee against Torture cannot help. This is the route most people would try first, and against Equatorial Guinea it does not exist. The country has never accepted the Committee’s power to consider complaints from individuals, and expressly rejected its power to open an inquiry when it joined the Convention in 2002.

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has no jurisdiction. Equatorial Guinea signed the Protocol establishing the Court in 1998 and never ratified it. The Court cannot hear a case against Equatorial Guinea at all.

Formally available, practically not

Equatorial Guinea has been party to the Refugee Convention since 1986 and is bound by its prohibition on refoulement, but monitoring organisations report that it operates no asylum framework and that detainees were told asylum was unavailable. The Human Rights Committee has found the judiciary to lack independence, with the executive playing a prominent role in its organisation. There is no verified legal aid scheme. There is no accredited national human rights institution.

Who is reachable

Lawyers. Some lawyers have reached detainees at the Bamy Hotel, and the organisations below are working with them. But access has been episodic and is reported to depend on the discretion of whichever guard is on duty, and lawyers seeking to visit have faced intimidation and threats of arrest. The bar association is not an independent check: Amnesty International has documented its suspension of lawyers who publicly called for judicial independence, and its president has held office since 2003 and is the President’s brother-in-law.

EG Justice is an Equatoguinean diaspora human rights organisation in Washington DC. It is the only organisation documented as having achieved a concrete result inside the country for people transferred there. Post Office Box 34213, Washington DC 20005. Telephone +1 202 643 4345.

The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa in Banjul is the litigation organisation that filed the African Commission complaint. 949 Brusubi Layout, AU Summit Highway, Post Office Box 1896, Banjul, The Gambia. Electronic mail ihrda@ihrda.org. Telephone +220 44 10 413.

The African Commission itself receives communications at 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region, Post Office Box 673, Banjul, The Gambia.

Consular help. The Coalition has not been able to verify from official sources which countries maintain a mission in Equatorial Guinea. Obtain that from your own country’s foreign ministry rather than from a list found online. Note also that in April 2026 several Cameroonian nationals were expelled from Equatorial Guinea without their embassy being told — so the existence of a mission has not guaranteed notification.

What is already before the courts

In the United States, judges have repeatedly intervened before removal and have so far never ordered anyone returned afterwards. In February 2026 a federal judge in Texas enjoined the removal of a Mauritanian woman with protection under the Convention against Torture, holding that “reliance on blanket assurances is no substitute for an individualized determination,” and that due process requires the government to answer whether removal “would result in ‘chain refoulement’” to the country she was protected from.

The broader challenge to the third-country removal policy, in which Equatorial Guinea is named, resulted in the policy being set aside in February 2026. That judgment was stayed by the First Circuit in March 2026 and, as of September 2026, no appellate decision has issued. The policy therefore remains in operation.

In its application for that stay, the Secretary of State swore a declaration describing the harm that would follow if the policy were suspended. It is about diplomatic relationships: negotiating momentum, partner confidence, arrangements “on the cusp of” conclusion. It does not assert that anyone removed under the policy will be safe.

What the courts have found about Equatorial Guinea specifically

In Soliman, the petitioner filed expert evidence from Tutu Alicante León, Executive Director of EG Justice, stating that Equatorial Guinea “has no asylum system in place that comports with international legal standards,” and that his organisation had documented more than two dozen third-country nationals deported there by the United States since November 2025 who were subsequently deported to their countries of origin despite “the existence of withholding of removal orders or other forms of protection issued by United States immigration courts.”

The court then recorded this: “Respondents do not challenge petitioner’s expert declaration concerning the lack of any system for adjudicating asylum claims for individuals deported to Equatorial Guinea, or the occurrence and frequency of Equatorial Guinea’s chain refoulement in cases involving deportees from the U.S.” The government let it stand. In the same filings it maintained that the State Department had determined Equatorial Guinea’s diplomatic assurances to be credible.

The petitioner was ordered released, and the government enjoined from removing him to a third country without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge.

Other courts have reached the same destination by different routes. In Elgendy v. Francis in August 2026, Judge Margaret Garnett ordered release because the record did not show that the Department of Homeland Security had worked through the sequence of countries that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) requires before settling on Equatorial Guinea — while stating expressly that she was not deciding Equatorial Guinea could never lawfully be the destination. In Ayuk Ntui, a Cameroonian man with protection under the Convention against Torture was accepted by Equatorial Guinea and placed on a flight manifest; the removal failed only because immigration officers sent him to the wrong staging facility, and he was released after the government could not show a significant likelihood of removal. In Nkafu, a Cameroonian woman who feared persecution in Equatorial Guinea as a lesbian and onward return to Cameroon had her petition dismissed without the merits being reached, the court holding it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).

The outcomes therefore turn substantially on where a person is detained.

What a grant of protection does and does not do

One point should not be overstated, because overstating it is the fastest way to lose the argument. Withholding of removal is country-specific. It bars return to the country named in it. It does not, by itself, prohibit the United States from removing a person somewhere else; the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a sequence of alternative destinations at 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), and the Supreme Court has held that withholding does not invalidate the removal order.

The objection to what has happened here is narrower and harder to answer. It is that a country cannot be used as an intermediary when there is a real and foreseeable risk it will send the person onward to the very place the protection named, without any meaningful process for assessing that risk. That is the chain-refoulement problem, and it is the reason the Committee against Torture reads Article 3 as reaching any state to which a person may subsequently be sent.

One further distinction matters where a person has a criminal record. The Refugee Convention permits exceptions to non-refoulement on national security and serious crime grounds. The Convention against Torture contains no such exception. A conviction may bar many forms of immigration relief. It does not create permission to return someone to torture.

Sources

Every claim on this page rests on a document that has been opened and read. Where a source could not be reached, it has been left out rather than summarised at second hand.

• Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Note Verbale to the United States Department of State, 2 October 2025, published by the Department of State under the Case Act reporting requirement.
• United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Minority Staff Report, At What Cost? Inside the Trump Administration’s Secret Deportation Deals, 13 February 2026.
• Declaration of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 5 March 2026, Exhibit A to the Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 26-1212.
• Memorandum and Order, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 5:26-cv-00070, 13 February 2026.
• United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Equatorial Guinea, 2022, 2023 and 2024.
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Experts urge Equatorial Guinea to uphold international obligations and halt returns of those at risk,” 13 May 2026.
• Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinions No. 70/2025, No. 13/2025 and No. 1/2024.
• Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on Equatorial Guinea in the absence of its initial report, CCPR/C/GNQ/CO/1, 22 August 2019.
• Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mission to Equatorial Guinea, A/HRC/13/39/Add.4, 7 January 2010.
• United Nations Treaty Collection and African Union treaty status lists, checked 7 September 2026.
• Global Detention Project, country study on Equatorial Guinea, June 2026.
• Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and others, statement of 12 August 2026.
• Amnesty International, Equatorial Guinea country entries 2023, 2024 and 2025.

This page was prepared on 7 September 2026 and reflects the record as at that date. Counts of people transferred and held change; where sources differ, both figures are given rather than reconciled.