CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760 (E) 201025 201025

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 of the

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 87/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

Abdullah Alaoudh (represented by Alkarama)

Alleged victim:

Salman al-Awdah

State Party:

Saudi Arabia

Date of communication:

26 January 2021 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decisions taken pursuant to rules 64 and 68 of

the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted

to the State Party on 5 March 2021 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

19 March 2025

Subject matter:

Incommunicado detention of a person with

disabilities; enforced disappearance; failure to

bring the person concerned to trial, to allow

access to legal assistance and to provide

reasonable accommodation and medical and

rehabilitative care; death penalty

Procedural issues:

Jurisdiction ratione materiae; representation;

exhaustion of domestic remedies; lack of

substantiation; abuse of the right of submission

Substantive issues:

Deprivation of liberty; torture; fair trial; integrity

of the person; health

Articles of the Covenant:

1, 3–5, 10, 12–17, 21 and 25

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

1 and 2 (b)–(e)

1.1

The author of the communication is Abdullah Alaoudh, a national of Saudi Arabia

born on 28 October 1983. He acts on behalf of his father, Salman al-Awdah, also a national

of Saudi Arabia, born on 1 February 1957. The author claims that the State Party has violated

Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights under articles 5 (1)–(3), 10, 12, 13 (1), 14–17, 21 and 25, read alone

and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention, and articles 10, 14 and

* Adopted by the Committee at its thirty-second session (3–21 March 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the consideration of the communication:

Muhannad Salah Al-Azzeh, Magino Corporán Lorenzo, Gerel Dondovdorj, Gertrude Oforiwa

Fefoame, Mara Cristina Gabrilli, Amalia Gamio Ríos, Natalia Guala Beathyate, Laverne Jacobs,

Rosemary Kayess, Kim Mi Yeon, Alfred Kouadio Kouassi, Abdelmajid Makni, Floyd Morris,

Christopher Nwanoro, Inmaculada Placencia Porrero, Markus Schefer and Hiroshi Tamon.

United Nations

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities

Distr.: General

21 October 2025

Original: English

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

2

GE.25-10760

25, read alone and in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention. The Optional Protocol

entered into force for the State Party on 24 July 2008. The author is represented by counsel.

1.2

On 5 March 2021, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new

communications and interim measures under article 4 of the Optional Protocol, requested the

State Party to allow independent medical doctors to visit Mr. Al-Awdah to assess his state of

health and needs and to report thereon. On 30 May 2023 and 12 February 2024, the

Committee reiterated those requests and further requested the State Party to ensure that

Mr. Al-Awdah received adequate medical care and rehabilitative treatment in accordance

with his health status and medical needs; and that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention conditions were

in accordance with international standards as prescribed in the United Nations Standard

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), as well as its

obligations under the Convention, including by immediately ending Mr. Al-Awdah’s

prolonged solitary confinement and ensuring that he have access to regular visits by and

telephone calls with his family, with the provision of reasonable accommodation given

Mr. Al-Awdah’s visual and hearing impairments.

1.3

On 18 June 2021, the State Party requested that the admissibility of the

communication be examined separately from the merits. On 30 May 2023, the Committee

denied the State Party’s request.

A.

Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

Mr. Al-Awdah is a prominent scholar and advocate of rights-based reforms in Islamic

thought. That work has made him a recurring target of the State Party’s crackdown on critics.

Mr. Al-Awdah’s criticism of the State Party’s monarchy is viewed as a political and religious

transgression under Wahhabism, the State Party’s official Islamic doctrine. He was a leader

of the Al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya (Islamic Awakening) movement, which called for peaceful

societal and governmental change. He was detained from 1994 until 1999 without charge. In

2011, he was subjected to an exit ban after supporting petitions for democratic reforms.

2.2

On 9 September 2017, two individuals identifying as State Security agents took

Mr. Al-Awdah from his home to an unknown location, without presenting an arrest warrant.

Mr. Al-Awdah was then ordered to publish a tweet expressing his support for the policy of

the Crown Prince, Mohamed bin Salman, towards Qatar, which he refused to do. Efforts by

persons associated with him to locate him did not lead to any information and resulted in the

arrest of his brother, Khaled al-Awdah, on 12 September 2017. According to the author,

Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest occurred in the context of a crackdown on freedom of expression. On

4 October 2017, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances transmitted

a case concerning him to the State Party. The State Party summarily replied on 26 December

2017 that Mr. Al-Awdah was detained in the General Intelligence Prison in Mecca pursuant

to article 5 of the Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing Act. On 22 December 2017, several

special procedure mandate holders sent a joint allegation letter calling on the State Party to

release immediately all persons imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of their legitimate rights,

including Mr. Al-Awdah and his brother.1 They concluded that the allegations appeared

contrary to articles 3, 9, 13 and 18– 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2.3

On 13 February 2018, Mr. Al-Awdah’s family visited him for the first time in five

months. In late 2019, he was transferred to Al-Haer Prison, where he remains today in solitary

confinement.

2.4

The author contends that Mr. Al-Awdah has been subjected to torture and denial of

medical care while in detention, which have led to the acquisition of impairments. To punish

him for his refusal to comply with the Crown Prince’s request, the authorities have kept him

outside the protection of the law, subjected him to long periods of secret and incommunicado

detention, several years of solitary confinement and sensory deprivation and other forms of

1 See allegation letter SAU 12/2017. All urgent appeals and allegation letters mentioned in the present

communication are available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

3

physical and psychological torture. From September 2017 to September 2018, he was kept

in solitary confinement in a small cell and deprived of natural light, continuously blindfolded,

shackled, handcuffed, deprived of sleep and medical assistance, and interrogated day and

night for extended periods. He was regularly beaten, handled violently and deprived of access

to a bathroom, food and sleep. He was thrown food in a bag without his hands being

unshackled, which forced him to remove the food with his mouth and to damage his teeth.

Prison officials denied him medication until January 2018, when he had to be urgently

hospitalized due to life-threatening high blood pressure. According to reports from unofficial

sources, he is still being interrogated with these techniques to force him to sign

self-incriminating documents, rendering him increasingly submissive. The author refers to a

report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and

fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism on his visit to Saudi Arabia according to

which the failure of Saudi Arabia to provide minimum procedural safeguards during

detention and interrogation, and its judicial practice of admitting coerced confessions into

evidence, strongly suggested that the practice was officially endorsed.2

2.5

Mr. Al-Awdah was denied all form of contact with the outside world from May 2020

to November 2020. In November 2020, Mr. Al-Awdah’s family learned from medical prison

staff that he had lost at least half of his sight in both eyes and more than half of his hearing.

On 18 November 2020, his children saw him at the State Security Court, but he appeared

disoriented, unresponsive and completely aloof, a different man from the prolific scholar and

public speaker he was known to be. His family has witnessed the fact that his consciousness

lacks clarity, that he cannot comprehend his environment and that he is inattentive.

Mr. Al-Awdah is facing a real risk of blindness given the denial of medical treatment and

rehabilitation. He was denied medical care and forced to take unidentified psychotropic

medication.

2.6

The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah has been subjected to an unfair trial. He was

denied access to legal assistance and has been kept outside the protection of the law. Most of

his hearings are held without prior notice, secretly and in camera. Mr. Al-Awdah did not have

access to his file and was not informed of the charges against him until 4 September 2018,

during his first, and secret, appearance before the prosecution of the Specialized Criminal

Court, which requested the death penalty against him on account of 37 vaguely defined

charges. According to the special procedure mandate holders in the letter sent regarding

Mr. Al-Awdah and others, the charges against them are based on overly broad definitions of

terrorism and other State security-related crimes that carried the potential for deliberate

misuse and unintended human rights abuses.3

2.7

The author refers to reports that signal that the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing

of Terrorism Act “provides for the death penalty for crimes that do not entail the loss of life”.4

The author argues that this is all the more concerning in Mr. Al-Awdah’s case given the

circumstances of his case and his state of health and impairments. The author notes that

special procedure mandate holders have stated that the allegations regarding Mr. Al-Awdah

and others seem to indicate a prima facie violation of the prohibition of torture.5

2.8

The author contends that the present communication is admissible. First,

Mr. Al-Awdah is a person with disabilities given his impairments of mental functions,

sensory functions and pain, and functions of the digestive, metabolic and endocrine systems,

in terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Second, no

domestic remedies are available to his family, as pursuing remedies would be futile and

dangerous in the light of the retaliatory measures taken against him and his brother and son.

Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested directly after a legislative reform that placed all investigative,

prosecutorial and judicial authorities under the direct authority of the King.6 Given the charge

against him of criticizing the royal authorities, the latter are investigator, judge, party and

executioner. The author notes concerns expressed by treaty bodies that authorities in the State

2 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 41.

3 See allegation letter SAU 12/2017.

4 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 51.

5 See urgent appeal SAU 16/2019.

6 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 12.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

4

GE.25-10760

Party cannot provide an independent and impartial remedy 7 and that the judiciary lacks

independence.8 The author argues that the special procedure mandate holders who intervened

in relation to Mr. Al-Awdah do not constitute a procedure of international investigation or

settlement within the meaning of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol.9

Complaint

3.1

The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah’s health is severely restricting his mobility and

self-care. The denial of medical and rehabilitative care and accommodation impede his

engagement in major life areas, including his scholarship and other previous intellectual

remunerated activities.10 Mr. Al-Awdah’s prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement and

the denial of care and accommodation constitute deliberate restrictions on his engagement

with organized social and civic life. He is forbidden any social interaction, recreation, leisure

or common worship. The author asserts that in these circumstances, he cannot enjoy any of

his rights under the Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including

to meaningfully engage in political life.

3.2

According to the author, since his arrest under the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and

Financing of Terrorism Act, Mr. Al-Awdah has been denied his right to effective access to

justice on an equal basis with others, to equal recognition before the law, and to liberty and

security, in violation of articles 5 (1)–(3), 13 and 14, read alone and in conjunction with

articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention. He is a victim of multiple discrimination on the

basis of his political opinions and his impairments resulting from torture and denial of

medical care, which are known to the authorities. Having been made psychologically and

physiologically incapable of expressing criticism, he has been denied reasonable

accommodation to punish and directly discriminate against him. He is also indirectly

discriminated against as the limited rights allowed under the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and

Financing of Terrorism Act are inaccessible to him. Moreover, his family has been subjected

to collective punishment as his brother was arrested, a travel ban was imposed on his family

and the author has been harassed. Mr. Al-Awdah was not provided with unhindered and

confidential visits with his relatives and independent legal counsel or additional tools of

communication such as oral means. It is challenging for him to hear his family speaking

during the visits, as they take place in a soundproofed booth with two phones connecting

each side.

3.3

The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah was not provided with adequate support or

accommodation to exercise his rights under article 12 (1)–(4), read alone and in conjunction

with articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention. The authorities subjected him to enforced

disappearance and incommunicado detention for long periods, leaving his family without any

information on his health, in breach of article 12 (1) of the Convention. The authorities

provided no adequate form of support to him to exercise his legal capacity, in violation of

article 12 (2) and (3) of the Convention, as no legal counsel has been allowed to communicate

with him, and his ability to comprehend his environment has been severely affected. The

2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act lacks any appropriate and effective

safeguards to prevent abuse, in breach of article 12 (4) of the Convention.

3.4

According to the author, the authorities have breached Mr. Al-Awdah’s right to access

to justice under article 13 (1) read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14

of the Convention, in the absence of any measures taken to allow him to communicate

confidentially with independent legal counsel or to have an independent examination of his

mental and bodily functions to assess his requirements. He is thus left to die in his cell. His

current state and the denial of visits, legal counsel and medical assistance pose

insurmountable obstacles to his access to justice. The author reiterates that the Specialized

Criminal Court lacks independence. Moreover, the State Party has failed to establish

7 Al-Adam v. Saudi Arabia (CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016), para. 10.4.

8 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 21.

9 Djebbar and Chihoub v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1811/2008), para. 7.2; and Krasovskaya and

Krasovskaya v. Belarus (CCPR/C/104/D/1820/2008), para. 7.2.

10 The author refers to specific elements of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability

and Health.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

5

accessible complaint mechanisms empowered to hear complaints of persons with

disabilities.11

3.5

The author contends that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention breaches his rights under

article 14 (1) (a) and (b) and (2) read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (3),

13 (1) and 21 of the Convention. Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention is unlawful as it contradicts the

standards of legality and non-discrimination. His case fits into a pattern of detention of

dissidents under the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, which does

not abide by lawfulness standards.12 The author argues that the Public Prosecution’s Office

and the Presidency of State Security do not meet the requirement that any form of detention

or imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or

other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest possible

guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence.13 Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention is

also arbitrary, given the refusal to provide procedural and reasonable accommodation and

because he has been detained for exercising his rights. Moreover, he was arrested on

9 September 2017 pursuant to the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act,

which entered into force on 31 October 2017, in violation of the principle of nullum crimen

sine lege.

3.6

The author submits that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention breaches his rights under article 21

read in conjunction with articles 5 (3) and 14 (1) and (2) of the Convention, as it is meant to

punish him for his peaceful criticism.

3.7

The author argues that the treatment of Mr. Al-Awdah in detention amounts to a

breach of his rights under articles 15, 16 and 17 read alone and in conjunction with articles 1,

3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention, given his enforced disappearance and lengthy

incommunicado detention, the cruel and inhumane conditions thereof, including solitary

confinement and sensory deprivation, and his powerlessness resulting from the denial of

reasonable accommodation. Mr. Al-Awdah’s family has unsuccessfully demanded an

independent medical examination, which shows a lack of effective independent prevention,

monitoring and complaint mechanisms.

3.8

Moreover, the conditions of detention of Mr. Al-Awdah and denial of appropriate

medical care breach his rights to life and health under articles 10 and 25, read alone and in

conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14 (2), of the Convention. Despite its heightened

duty of care towards Mr. Al-Awdah as a person with disabilities in detention and even though

his symptoms show an urgent need for a complete medical assessment and care, he has been

left in solitary detention without care or tools to communicate his requirements, practically

condemned to a slow death in detention, contrarily to rules 24 to 35 of the Nelson Mandela

Rules.

3.9

The author contends that the failure to release Mr. Al-Awdah in the context of the

coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic breached his rights under articles 10, 14 and 25,

read alone and in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention. He argues that

Mr. Al-Awdah is under imminent, serious and irreversible threat, as his old age and chronic

high blood pressure constitute significant risk factors in case of an infection with COVID-19.

Pursuant to said provisions, he should be released immediately. In addition, Mr. Al-Awdah

is at risk of being sentenced to death, which may be carried out any time without prior notice,

in breach of his rights under article 10 of the Convention.

3.10

The author argues that the State Party confirmed the veracity of his allegations in its

replies to the letters sent by special procedure mandate holders. The author submits his claims

of violations of the Convention alone and in conjunction with article 1, as deeply entrenched

practices and the impunity that surrounds them defeat the purpose of the Convention; with

11 The author refers to the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with

Disabilities.

12 The author refers to the following Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opinions Nos.: 10/2018,

para. 52; 32/2017, para. 40; 33/2017, para. 102; 36/2017, para. 110; 41/2017, paras. 98–101; 44/2016,

para. 37; 51/2017, para. 57; 56/2017, para. 72; 62/2018, paras. 57–59; 71/2019; and 93/2017,

para. 61.

13 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, opinion No. 93/2017, para. 44.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

6

GE.25-10760

article 3, as they violate each principle of the Convention; and with article 4 (1)–(3) as the

violations are a consequence of a failure to respect, protect and fulfil the right of all persons

with disabilities to non-discrimination and equality, including by failing to modify or abolish

existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute such discrimination.14

3.11

The author requests that the State Party provide restitution, including the restoration

of liberty, the end of reprisals against Mr. Al-Awdah and his relatives, compensation,

satisfaction, and measures and guarantees of non-repetition. The author refers to the

recommendation made by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human

rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism to urgently review all current

cases in which prisoners accused and sentenced for crimes of terrorism were facing the death

penalty in order to ensure that international minimum standards were met in each case.15 The

author requests that the Committee issue a public statement on the reprisals against

Mr. Al-Awdah and his family in a context of generalized intimidation of political opponents

and ask the authorities to refrain from such acts against Mr. Al-Awdah and his family; adopt

all measures necessary to protect them; and report with information on measures taken to

comply with the request.

State Party’s observations on admissibility

4.1

In its observations dated 18 June 2021, the State Party contends that the Committee

lacks competence to consider the communication under article 1 of the Optional Protocol,

because Mr. Al-Awdah is not a person with disabilities in accordance with article 1 of the

Convention.

4.2

The State Party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (b) of

the Optional Protocol, as Mr. Al-Awdah has not authorized the author to mandate Alkarama

to submit the communication. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Al-Awdah from submitting a

communication himself or from submitting a signed authorization.

4.3

According to the State Party, the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (d) of

the Optional Protocol, as the author has not exhausted remedies or explained the reasons for

failing to do so. The State Party argues that Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother was arrested not for

having denounced his arrest but for terrorist offences. According to the State Party, the author

should have brought the communication before domestic courts, which are effective within

a reasonable time and available to him. Domestic legislation provides effective access to

justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others and requires the authorities

to provide remedies regardless of religion, race, sex or nationality. In the event of a violation,

the judiciary and governmental and non-governmental human rights organizations can

provide effective remedies.

4.4

The State Party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (e) of

the Optional Protocol as manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated, since the

author has not provided any evidence of the alleged violations. The author affirms that only

a medical assessment can determine Mr. Al-Awdah’s medical condition, but the

communication lacks such an assessment, and he does not explain how he has concluded that

Mr. Al-Awdah has several disabilities in terms of the International Classification of

Functioning, Disability and Health. According to the State Party, Mr. Al-Awdah receives

continuous medical care and examination by an independent medical body.

4.5

The State Party observes that the interim measures requested by the Committee are

already legally guaranteed to all detainees. All medical care necessary is provided to

Mr. Al-Awdah, as it is to other detainees. Mr. Al-Awdah has undergone several medical

examinations, including upon his detention. Continuous examinations are conducted against

the spread of COVID-19 among detainees.16 Sixty-eight per cent of detainees in the prisons

14 The author refers to general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 30.

15 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 55.

16 The State Party lists the following examinations: “vital signs: within the normal range”; “medical

examinations and results of analyses: normal”; “medical examinations of the lower limbs and spine:

minor pain in the lower limbs”; “neurological examination: normal”; “spinal sensation test: normal”;

“straight leg raise test: 90 degrees”; “he has scheduled visits to specialized medical clinics”.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

7

of the Presidency of State Security have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The remaining

detainees can decide whether to be vaccinated or not.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility

5.1

In his comments dated 3 April 2023, the author submits that Mr. Al-Awdah is

protected by the Convention as a person with disabilities. He argues that the information

provided by the State Party on medical examinations is vague, incomplete and undated and

does not respond to the medical issues and impairments raised in the initial submission.

Despite Mr. Al-Awdah’s age and impairments, the information lacks mention of a basic head

examination, including of his vision and hearing. The overview also lacks information on his

mental health even though, at the time of the submission of the author’s comments, he had

been held in solitary confinement for almost six years uninterrupted. Mr. Al-Awdah’s family

witnessed his impairments first-hand during the hearing before the Specialized Criminal

Court in November 2020 and again during sporadically allowed visits.

5.2

The author notes that Mr. Al-Awdah is physically separated from his relatives by

soundproofed glass during visits. It has become increasingly difficult for his relatives to have

meaningful discussions with him, as he cannot properly hear them or see their facial

expressions. The author argues that prolonged solitary confinement causes serious

psychological and physical harm and leads to and aggravates permanent impairments.

According to the author, Mr. Al-Awdah acquired those impairments in detention and neither

he nor his family have been allowed to access his medical records or seek an independent

medical assessment.17 The author expresses concern at the State Party’s argument regarding

the absence of a medical assessment, which he precisely requested in his initial submission.

However, a visit in accordance with the Committee’s request for interim measures has never

been allowed. The State Party does not indicate the nature of the medical body responsible

for providing care to Mr. Al-Awdah or how its independence is guaranteed and has not

allowed him independent legal counsel to ensure access to an independent healthcare

provider. Despite the seriousness of his symptoms, Mr. Al-Awdah is being held in solitary

confinement, deprived of contact and of any means to communicate his requirements, as

punishment for his criticism of the Crown Prince. Prison guards are instructed not to talk with

him when they bring him food.

5.3

Regarding the State Party’s argument under article 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol, the

author reiterates that the detention conditions of Mr. Al-Awdah amount to a violation of

article 12 of the Convention, that his family is seldom allowed to see him, that he has no

access to a lawyer or to any form of reasonable accommodation, and that he is not allowed

phone calls to his family. The State Party has denied Mr. Al-Awdah’s legal capacity and

prevented him and his relatives in the State Party from submitting or authorizing the

submission of a communication. As the son of Mr. Al-Awdah, he has a legitimate interest in

defending him and, living abroad, he is the only family member who could materially sign

and submit the authorization.

5.4

The author reiterates that domestic remedies are illusory and perilous, as

Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention, placement outside the protection of the law and denial of legal

assistance and of his right to challenge his detention before an independent court prevent him

from having access any of his rights. Mr. Al-Awdah has been presented only once before the

prosecution of the Specialized Criminal Court, in November 2020, and he could not hear or

comprehend what happened during the hearing, was not accompanied by a lawyer and could

not speak. Another hearing was held on 6 July 2021, but Mr. Al-Awdah was not presented

before the judge, who decided to reschedule without setting a date for the next hearing.

Without any hearing, Mr. Al-Awdah has thus been confined to indefinite detention.

5.5

The author refers to observations by the Committee against Torture and the Working

Group on Arbitrary Detention, according to which the State Party’s laws do not specify a

time frame within which officials must honour the right of persons deprived of their liberty

17 The author refers to a finding by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human

rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism regarding “the absence of genuinely

independent medical examinations of suspects alleging torture (A/HR/40/52/Add.2, para. 31).

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

8

GE.25-10760

to have access to a lawyer and lawyers must obtain the permission of investigators in order

to access their clients and the Specialized Criminal Court is insufficiently independent of the

Ministry of the Interior and cannot be considered an independent and impartial tribunal.18

Institutional reforms have placed the investigatory powers of the Ministry of the Interior

directly under the authority of the Public Prosecution’s Office and the Presidency of State

Security, both of which report directly to the King.

5.6

The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother was arrested only four days after the

arrest of Mr. Al-Awdah, which he had denounced on social media and reported to the

Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother is

being held in Al-Tarafiya Prison, where he has been regularly subjected to prolonged

incommunicado detention and solitary confinement, tortured and deprived of legal assistance.

In October 2018, he was prosecuted before the Specialized Criminal Court on charges such

as “sympathizing with his brother”, “mixing private and public business” and “seeking to

employ the arrest of his brother to stir up discord and destabilise security”.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

6.1

In its observations dated 31 August 2023, the State Party reiterates that the

communication is inadmissible as Mr. Al-Awdah does not have disabilities, given that

medical examinations have confirmed that he does not “suffer from any severe lack of visual

and auditory functions” and the communication lacks proof to the contrary. The State Party

affirms that Mr. Al-Awdah can authorize the submission of the communication, as he has

effective access to the judiciary, attends court sessions, was never subjected to enforced

disappearance and has contact with his family. The State Party submits that the author has

not demonstrated that he need not exhaust domestic remedies, noting that Mr. Al-Awdah has

appointed A.A.-N. as lawyer of his choice and several of his sons as his agents, that he enjoys

all his rights in detention and that his trial, conducted before an independent and competent

court, is fair and public. The communication lacks substantiation in the absence of any

evidence, and the claims are fabricated. The State Party submits that the author took more

than 21 months to respond to its observations on admissibility and that the delay constitutes

an abuse of the right to submit a communication.

6.2

The State Party observes that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant

issued under article 4 of the Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing Act of 2013, in accordance

with the principle of non-retroactivity, based on evidence that he had committed crimes of

terrorism unrelated to political or religious activities. Mr. Al-Awdah was informed of the

charges against him on the same day and of his rights to a lawyer in accordance with domestic

law. His detention was subsequently extended pursuant to a judicial order, while he continued

to enjoy his right to challenge the legality of his detention in accordance with article 115 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the interrogation procedure, the investigative authority

decided to charge him and referred his file to the Specialized Criminal Court. A statement by

the Public Prosecutor was read out to Mr. Al-Awdah during the trial and he was provided

with a copy thereof. The Court granted his request for legal aid. He has been responsive to

the Court, has been aware of the procedures relating to him, has reviewed the list of public

proceedings, has requested a reasonable deadline from the Court to prepare his defence and

has met on an ongoing basis with his lawyer and agents, who were granted sufficient time

and access to files and submitted a defence. Mr. Al-Awdah’s trial is public, attended by his

representatives, members of his family and representatives of the Human Rights Commission,

the media and embassies. The case remains pending. Mr. Al-Awdah and his family have not

been subjected to any form of intimidation or reprisals, which are criminalized under the laws

of the State Party.

6.3

The State Party denies that Mr. Al-Awdah has been subjected to enforced

disappearance, torture, abuse or deprivation of care. The author’s claims are detached from

reality and unsupported by evidence. Mr. Al-Awdah has been treated well since his arrest, as

corroborated by medical reports based on independent examinations, and the authorities did

not refuse to disclose the place of his arrest to his family. At its 115th session, the Working

18 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, paras. 14 and 17; and Working Group on

Arbitrary Detention, opinion No. 86/2020, paras. 83 and 84.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

9

Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances decided to consider his case as clarified.

The State Party’s laws prohibit enforced disappearance.

6.4

The State Party’s Human Rights Commission has confirmed that Mr. Al-Awdah’s

health is good, he receives appropriate medical care, including medication and glasses, he is

subject to regular follow-up and he has been examined by orthopaedics, internal medicine,

surgery and urology and for his eyes, heart, ears, nose and throat. The Human Rights

Commission continues to follow up on his case. He enjoys all his rights, consistent with

international human rights standards. There are no barriers to visits, of which he has received

more than 55, including 15 private visits by his wives, 31 public visits by his wives, brothers,

sons and daughters, and 9 by his lawyers and agents. He is detained in collective wards, is

placed in a single room at his will rather than in solitary confinement and has access to

detention services such as a library and entertainment.

6.5

The State Party submits that the arrest and trial of Mr. Al-Awdah are in accordance

with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons

under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Pursuant to the Medical Services Regulation,

detainees are medically examined immediately upon their detention and regularly thereafter,

and all prisons are subject to judicial, administrative, health and social inspections. All

detainees enjoy comprehensive medical care in accordance with applicable legislation. The

State Party has replaced the Care of the Disabled Act with the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities Act, thus promoting, inter alia, societal inclusivity, equal opportunities,

non-discrimination, accessibility and accommodation.

6.6

The State Party submits that, pursuant to the Basic Law of Governance and the

Judicial Law, the judiciary enjoys complete independence. Torture constitutes a serious crime

in the State Party, which takes effective measures to prevent its commission. If there is good

reason to believe that torture has been committed, investigations are conducted immediately,

even in the absence of a complaint. Domestic laws are sufficiently precise to be predictable

and respect the presumption of innocence, safeguard the conduct of criminal proceedings,

protect the legal profession and protect the rights to a fair and public trial before a competent

and independent court, to legal assistance and to object to a sentence before a higher court.

The Specialized Criminal Court is independent, and appointments and promotions in the

judiciary are made by royal order on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Judicial Council.

The State Party respects the right to freedom of opinion and expression for everyone except

in cases of infringement of public order, society or its constituents. No one is detained for

exercising their rights. The State Party affirms that terrorism is one of the most serious threats

to international peace and security, and that it counters terrorism consistently with

international standards.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

7.1

In his comments dated 17 January 2024, the author reiterates that Mr. Al-Awdah’s

arrest and detention do not have a legal basis. The author affirms that the 2017

Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act is vaguely and broadly worded and

establishes discretionary power to issue prison sentences for criticism of the monarchy.

7.2

The author reiterates that Mr. Al-Awdah was subjected to enforced disappearance,

held in solitary confinement and indefinite detention, deprived of medical care and threatened

with the death penalty, which amount to severe physical and psychological torture. However,

the State Party has merely affirmed that he was not tortured. His family is seldom allowed to

see him and only during monitored non-contact visits and he is not allowed to call them. He

continues to lack access to a lawyer or reasonable accommodations. The author disputes that

the State Party’s judiciary is independent, noting that article 52 of the Basic Law of

Governance states that judges are appointed and removed from office by the King. The

Specialized Criminal Court is composed of judges directly appointed by the Ministry of the

Interior and is thus not independent.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

10

GE.25-10760

B.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

8.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 70 of its rules of

procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

8.2

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the Committee lacks competence

to consider the present communication under article 1 of the Optional Protocol because

Mr. Al-Awdah is not a person with a disability within the meaning of article 1 of the

Convention, as medical reports have confirmed that his health is good and that he does not

suffer from any severe lack of visual and auditory functions. However, the Committee also

notes the author’s arguments that the information provided by the State Party is vague,

incomplete and undated and does not respond to his claims, and that the State Party, which

is holding Mr. Al-Awdah in detention, has not provided medical reports. In that regard, the

Committee recalls that the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a

communication, especially given that the author and the State Party do not always have the

same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State Party is in possession of the

necessary information.19 As Mr. Al-Awdah is in detention, the Committee considers that it is

for the State Party to conduct a medical assessment and to provide the result thereof. The

Committee notes the absence of such assessment and the author’s information that

Mr. Al-Awdah has lost at least half of his previous sight in both eyes and more than half of

his previous hearing and that he has appeared disoriented, unresponsive and aloof. The

Committee recalls that, under article 1 of the Convention, persons with disabilities include,

but are not limited to, those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory

impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective

participation in society on an equal basis with others.20 In this regard, the Committee recalls

that a human rights-based model of disability requires the diversity of persons with

disabilities to be taken into account (preamble to the Convention, para. (i)) together with the

interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers

(preamble to the Convention, para. (e)).21 In view thereof, the Committee considers that

Mr. Al-Awdah is a person with disabilities within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention

who is claiming violations of his rights under the Convention, and therefore concludes that

he has victim status and that article 1 of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from

considering the present communication.

8.3

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that Alkarama has not provided proof

that it has been duly authorized to submit the present communication. The Committee notes,

however, that the communication includes a copy of a signed document by which the author

authorizes Alkarama to file the communication to the Committee on behalf of Mr. Al-Awdah.

The Committee further notes that, although the communication lacks a written authorization

by Mr. Al-Awdah himself, the author argues that he has a legitimate interest as

Mr. Al-Awdah’s son in defending him, and that Mr. Al-Awdah has been kept outside the

protection of the law. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that Mr. Al-Awdah has

appeared disoriented, unresponsive, aloof and inattentive during his detention, and that he

cannot comprehend his relatives during visits. In those circumstances, 22 the Committee

concludes that the author has jus standi under article 1 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

19 For example, Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011), para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria

(CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008/Rev.1), para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

(CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3.

20 S.C. v. Brazil (CRPD/C/12/D/10/2013), para. 6.3; X v. United Republic of Tanzania

(CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014), para. 7.6; Y v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/20/D/23/2014),

para. 7.5; and Z v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/22/D/24/2014), para. 7.3.

21 S.C. v. Brazil, para. 6.3; X v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.6; Y v. United Republic of

Tanzania, para. 7.5; Z v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.3; Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia

(CRPD/C/30/D/84/2020), para. 12.2.

22 Rule 69 of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CRPD/C/1/Rev.1).

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

11

8.4

The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the author abused his right to

submit a communication as he took more than 21 months to respond to its observations on

admissibility. The Committee notes, however, that the author submitted his comments within

a month from the date on which the observations were transmitted to him. Noting that the

Optional Protocol and rules of procedure do not stipulate whether or in which circumstances

a delay in responding to the State Party’s observations may constitute an abuse of the right

to submit a communication, the Committee considers that, in the present case, article 2 (b) of

the Optional Protocol does not prevent it from considering the present communication.

8.5

The Committee notes that several special procedure mandate holders have sent joint

allegation letters and joint urgent appeals to the State Party concerning Mr. Al-Awdah’s

alleged detention, enforced disappearance and torture.23 The Committee recalls, however,

that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council

do not generally constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement within the

meaning of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol.24 The Committee also notes that the

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared the detention of Mr. Al-Awdah

commencing in 1994 to be arbitrary, but that this period of detention is outside the scope of

the present communication.25 Accordingly, the Committee considers that article 2 (c) of the

Optional Protocol does not preclude it from examining the present communication.

8.6

The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the communication is

inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, as the author has not explained why

he has not exhausted domestic remedies; judicial, other governmental and non-governmental

remedies are effective; Mr. Al-Awdah has attended his trial, which complies with fair trial

standards; and there have been no reprisals against his family. The Committee notes the

author’s claims that complaining to the Public Prosecutor’s Office would not constitute an

effective remedy, as that Office is under the direct control of the King, who is ultimately

judge and party, and Mr. Al-Awdah has been detained precisely for his criticism of the royal

authorities. In addition, the Committee recalls concerns that the Human Rights Commission

and the General Directorate of Investigation, its control body, lack independence and

competence in cases of alleged arbitrary detention and therefore cannot provide an

independent and impartial remedy.26 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that

pursuing domestic remedies would be dangerous given the reprisals carried out by State

authorities against Mr. Al-Awdah and his relatives. The Committee notes, in particular, the

author’s allegation concerning the detention of the brother of Mr. Al-Awdah for trying to

clarify the latter’s whereabouts. In view thereof, the Committee concludes that the remedies

referred to by the State Party would not be effective or available in practice to the author and

that article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the consideration of the present

communication.

8.7

The Committee notes that, according to the State Party, the communication is

inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. The

Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims under

articles 12 (2) and (3) and 16, which are already encompassed within the claims raised under

articles 5, 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Convention. The Committee also considers that the

author’s claim under article 12 (4) of the Convention, which outlines the safeguards that must

be present in a system of support in the exercise of legal capacity, 27 is insufficiently

substantiated, in the absence of indications that Mr. Al-Awdah is subject to such a support

system. Furthermore, in view of the information on file, the Committee considers that the

author has insufficiently substantiated his claim of the insufficiency of measures related to

COVID-19 under articles 10, 14 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 11, of the

Convention, noting the absence of information regarding the sanitary conditions of

23 See allegation letter SAU 12/2017, urgent appeal SAU 14/2018, urgent appeal SAU 16/2019 and

allegation letter SAU 3/2021.

24 Al-Sayed and Mangisto v. State of Palestine (CRPD/C/28/D/67/2019-CRPD/C/28/D/68/2019),

para. 7.5.

25 Decision No. 48/1995 (see E/CN.4/1997/4/Add.1).

26 Al-Adam v. Saudi Arabia, para. 10.4; Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 12.4; CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and

CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 34.

27 General comment No. 1 (2014), para. 20.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

12

GE.25-10760

Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention. The Committee therefore finds that those claims are

insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. In

relation to the author’s claims invoked in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, the

Committee notes that said provision specifies the purpose of the Convention but does not

give rise to any obligations. Therefore, the Committee cannot admit the claims insofar as they

are invoked in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.

8.8

The Committee considers, however, that the author has sufficiently substantiated, for

the purpose of admissibility, his remaining claims regarding the alleged violations of

Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights under articles 5 (1), (2) and (3), 10, 12 (1), 13 (1), 14, 15, 17, 21 and

25 of the Convention concerning his alleged arbitrary detention, torture and enforced

disappearance, his conditions of detention, including the lack of reasonable accommodation

and lack of provision of medical care, including for his vision and hearing, the alleged lack

of due process guarantees during the proceedings against him, the alleged discrimination on

the grounds of his disability and the prospect of being sentenced to death. In addition, the

Committee considers that the author has raised, in substance, issues under article 29 (b) of

the Convention, which it considers to be sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of

admissibility.

8.9

In the absence of any other challenge to the admissibility of the communications, the

Committee declares the communication as based on articles 5 (1)–(3), 10, 12 (1), 13 (1), 14,

15, 17, 21, 25 and 29 (b) of the Convention admissible insofar as it is sufficiently

substantiated, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

9.1

The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information

that it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of

the Committee’s rules of procedure.

9.2

The Committee notes the author’s claim of breaches of articles 5 (1), (2) and (3), 14

and 21 read alone and in conjunction with articles 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention, as he

was arrested and subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention under the

Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act for his opposition to the Crown and

thereby prevented from continuing his participation in political life. Noting the author’s claim

that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested pursuant to the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of

Terrorism Act, which was not yet in force at the time, the Committee also notes the State

Party’s observation that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested under the Crimes of Terrorism and its

Financing Act of 2013. The Committee further notes, however, that an arrest or detention

may be authorized by domestic law and nonetheless be arbitrary. 28 The notion of

“arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law” but must be interpreted more

broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due

process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.29

9.3

The Committee notes the author’s claims that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested and

detained on 9 September 2017 by State Security forces and that the State Party’s authorities

did not acknowledge his detention until 26 December 2017, namely, more than two months

after his arrest; that he was informed of the charges against him only on 4 September 2018;

that the Specialized Criminal Court in charge of his case lacks independence as its members

are appointed by the Government;30 that there has been no progress in the proceedings

following a hearing held on 6 July 2021; and that regular family visits have not been allowed.

The Committee notes the State Party’s affirmation that Mr. Al-Awdah was informed of the

charges against him on the day of his detention. The Committee notes, however, that the

account of the charges against Mr. Al-Awdah is dated 4 September 2018, and that the State

Party has not provided any evidence in support of its argument. The Committee notes,

moreover, that the State Party provides no documentation regarding the evidence held against

28 Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.2. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35

(2014), para. 12.

29 Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.2.

30 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 17.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

13

Mr. Al-Awdah that would justify his detention31 or any concrete information on the progress

of the trial since Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest and detention more than seven years ago. Noting the

State Party’s negation of the claim that Mr. Al-Awdah is being detained for his political

dissent, the Committee notes, nevertheless, that, according to a letter sent by special

procedure mandate holders, the bulk of the charges against Mr. Al-Awdah and others was

based on overly broad definitions of terrorism and other State security-related crimes that

carried the potential for deliberate misuse and unintended human rights abuses. 32 The

Committee further notes that among the 37 charges against Mr. Al-Awdah are “inducing

corruption on earth”, “calling for change in the Saudi government”, “calling for and inciting

revolution in Saudi Arabia and support for revolutions in other Arab countries”, “describing

the Kingdom’s authorities as tyrannical”, “praising the Turkish experience” and other charges

that are vaguely defined or apparently relate to his exercise of his rights. In view thereof, the

Committee considers that even if Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention had a basis in domestic law, it

is arbitrary. Moreover, recalling that reasonable accommodation is an intrinsic part of the

immediately applicable duty of non-discrimination in the context of disability, the Committee

notes that no accommodation has been provided to Mr. Al-Awdah to ensure his effective

access to complaint mechanisms taking into account his impairments, nor have steps been

taken to monitor and investigate the breaches of his right to liberty and security and fair trial

rights.33 The Committee also notes the author’s uncontested statement that Mr. Al-Awdah’s

detention has precluded him from continuing his participation in political life. Considering

the foregoing, the Committee finds that the State Party has breached Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights

under articles 5 (1), (2) and (3), 14, 21 and 29 (b), read alone and in conjunction with

articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, of the Convention.

9.4

The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State Party subjected Mr. Al-Awdah

to enforced disappearance. The Committee recalls that enforced disappearance constitutes a

single, integrated group of acts that represents a continuing violation of various rights,

including the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment and the right to liberty and security of person.34 The

Committee also recalls that enforced disappearance represents a paradigmatic violation of

the right to be recognized as a person before the law.35 The Committee notes the State Party’s

observation that its authorities did not refuse to disclose the place of Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest

to his family and that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances decided

to consider his case as clarified. However, the Committee notes that the State Party has not

provided any specific explanation in response to the author’s argument that his family was

denied any information on his fate and whereabouts until 26 December 2017, more than two

months after his arrest and detention, thereby placing him outside the protection of the law.

The Committee also notes that the State Party has not specifically responded to the author’s

argument that charges brought against Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother, such as “sympathizing with

his brother”, demonstrate the intimidation they have faced following their efforts to clarify

his fate and whereabouts. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State

Party subjected Mr. Al-Awdah to enforced disappearance, in breach of his rights under

articles 10, 12 (1), 14 and 15, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and

4, of the Convention.

9.5

The Committee notes the author’s claim of a violation of his rights under article 10 of

the Convention, as he is at risk of being sentenced to death and such a sentence could be

carried out without prior notice and at any time. Noting that Mr. Al-Awdah remains on trial

31 Alakuş v. Türkiye (CCPR/C/135/D/3736/2020), para. 10.3; Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.3.

32 AL SAU 12/2017.

33 General comment No. 6 (2018), para. 23; guidelines on the right to liberty and security of persons

with disabilities (A/72/55, annex), para. 19.

34 Ferhati and Ferhati v. Algeria (CCPR/C/135/D/3125/2018), para. 8.4; El Boathi v. Algeria

(CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013), para. 7.4; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012),

para. 9.4; Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; and Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia,

para. 13.4. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life,

para. 58.

35 Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.4; and Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary

Disappearances, general comment on the right to recognition as a person before the law in the context

of enforced disappearances (A/HRC/19/58/Rev.1, para. 42), para. 1.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

14

GE.25-10760

facing said charges, the Committee considers that he faces a real risk of being subjected to

the death penalty.36 The Committee notes the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee

according to which among the requirements of article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights, is that capital punishment be imposed only for the most serious

crimes, in circumstances not contrary to the Covenant and other instruments, and that it be

carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.37 However, the

Committee shares the assessment by special procedure mandate holders that the charges

against Mr. Al-Awdah do not reach said threshold. 38 The Committee notes the

pronouncement by the Human Rights Committee that under no circumstances can the death

penalty ever be applied as a sanction against conduct the very criminalization of which

violates the Covenant.39 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State

Party would violate Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights under article 10 of the Convention by sentencing

him to the death penalty.

9.6

The Committee notes the author’s claim of a violation of Mr. Al-Awdah’s right to

access to justice under article 13 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 3, 4, 5 (3)

and 14, of the Convention. The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that its laws

guarantee a fair and public trial before an independent and impartial judiciary. However, the

Committee notes that, despite the author’s argument regarding Mr. Al-Awdah’s loss of at

least half of his previous sight in both eyes, of more than half of his previous hearing and of

his capacity for comprehension and attention during his detention, the State Party has not

provided any information on measures taken to support Mr. Al-Awdah’s participation in his

trial and to fulfil his due process rights taking into account his disabilities. The Committee

also notes the author’s arguments that Mr. Al-Awdah was kept outside the protection of the

law for a period of his detention, that most of his hearings are held without prior notice,

secretly and in camera and that he did not have access to his file and was not informed of the

charges against him until 4 September 2018, a year after he was detained. Therefore, the

Committee finds that the State Party has breached his rights under article 13, read alone and

in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, of the Convention.

9.7

The Committee notes the author’s claim of breaches of articles 10 and 25, read alone

and in conjunction with articles 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14 (2), of the Convention. The Committee

recalls, in the light of article 25, read in conjunction with article 14 (2), of the Convention,

that States Parties have a special responsibility to uphold human rights when prison

authorities exercise significant control or power over persons with disabilities who have been

deprived of their liberty by a court of law.40 The Committee notes the author’s claims that

Mr. Al-Awdah was denied medical and rehabilitative care, including until January 2018,

when he had to be urgently hospitalized; that his family learned from medical prison staff

that he had lost at least half of his previous sight in both eyes and more than half of his

previous hearing; that it has become difficult for Mr. Al-Awdah to hear his relatives and to

see their expressions during family visits; and that he acquired those impairments in detention.

The Committee also notes the author’s claim that Mr. Al-Awdah is being held in solitary

confinement, deprived of contact and of any means or tools to communicate his requirements.

The Committee notes the State Party’s observation that Mr. Al-Awdah was medically

examined upon his detention and several times thereafter, including in terms of orthopaedics,

internal medicine, surgery and urology and for his eyes, heart, ears, nose and throat; that he

receives all care necessary; and that all examinations had given “normal” results. However,

the Committee notes the author’s argument that the information provided by the State Party

is vague, incomplete and undated, does not respond specifically to the author’s allegations or

explain what measures have been taken to prevent his impairments from worsening, and has

not been accompanied by copies of medical reports. The Committee recalls again that the

burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given

that the author and the State Party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence

36 Similarly, see European Court of Human Rights, Al Nashiri v. Romania, Application No. 33234/12,

judgment, 31 May 2018, para. 728.

37 Cox v. Canada, communication No. 539/1993, para. 16.2.

38 See urgent appeal SAU 16/2019.

39 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 36.

40 X v. Argentina (CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012), para. 8.9; Al-Adam v. Saudi Arabia, para. 11.6.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

GE.25-10760

15

and that often only the State Party is in possession of the necessary information.41 The

Committee considers, given the information at its disposal, that it has insufficient evidence

before it to conclude that the lack of medical care provided constitutes a violation of article 10

of the Convention. However, given the degradation of Mr. Al-Awdah’s health and his

acquisition of impairments in detention and noting that the State Party has not demonstrated

that it provided the required medical care to Mr. Al-Awdah, the Committee considers that

the State Party has also breached article 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b),

(c) and (f), 4, 5 (3) and 14, of the Convention.

9.8

The Committee notes the author’s claim that the conditions of Mr. Al-Awdah’s

detention constitute breaches of articles 15 and 17, read alone and in conjunction with

articles 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the failure to adopt

relevant measures and to provide sufficient reasonable accommodation when they are

required by persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty may constitute

a breach of articles 15 (2) and 17 of the Convention.42 The Committee also recalls that persons

deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that

resulting from the deprivation of liberty; and they must be treated in accordance with, inter

alia, the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Committee notes that, according to the information on

file, Mr. Al-Awdah’s family was only able to visit him five months into his detention and he

was denied all contact with the outside world from May to November 2020. The Committee

notes the author’s claims that Mr. Al-Awdah has spent several years in solitary confinement

and that the authorities have subjected him to deprivation of natural light, sleep and medical

assistance, sensory deprivation, continual blindfolding, shackling, handcuffing, prolonged

interrogations, regular beatings and violent handling, deprivation of access to a bathroom and

food, and being forced to damage his teeth opening food bags with his mouth. Recognizing

the degree of suffering involved in prolonged isolation and the aforementioned treatment,

and noting concerns raised by special procedure mandate holders that the allegations also

seemed to indicate a prima facie violation of the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of

torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the Committee

considers that the State Party has breached the rights of Mr. Al-Awdah under articles 15 and

17, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f), 4, 5 (3) and 14, of the

Convention.43

C.

Conclusions and recommendations

10.

The Committee, acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the

State Party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5 (1)–(3), 10, 12 (1), 13, 14, 15,

21 and 29 (b), read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, articles 15,

17 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f), 4, 5 (3) and 14 of the

Convention. The Committee therefore makes the following recommendations to the State

Party:

(a)

Concerning Mr. Al-Awdah, the State Party is under an obligation:

(i)

To promptly review his case to ensure he has a fair and public trial by a

competent, independent and impartial tribunal and is treated in full accordance with

international standards, including the guarantees enshrined in the Convention, the

Committee’s guidelines on the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities

and the Nelson Mandela Rules, in particular the provision of reasonable

accommodation and prompt access to adequate healthcare and therapy, or to release

him;

41 For example, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya, para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3.

42 X v. Argentina, para. 8.7; guidelines on the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities,

para. 18; and Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.7.

43 See urgent appeal SAU 16/2019.

CRPD/C/32/D/87/2021

16

GE.25-10760

(ii)

To immediately cease, investigate, prevent the reoccurrence of and establish

accountability for acts of reprisals against Mr. Al-Awdah and his relatives for

criticizing the domestic authorities;

(iii)

To provide him with an effective remedy, including effective reparation and

adequate monetary compensation for the violations of his rights under the Convention;

(b)

In general, the State Party is under an obligation to take measures to prevent

similar violations in the future. In that regard, the Committee refers to the recommendations

contained in its concluding observations on the initial report of the State Party44 and the

Committee’s guidelines on the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities, and

requires the State Party:

(i)

To review counter-terrorism legislation to ensure its compliance with

international standards on fair trial rights and the right to liberty and security;

(ii)

To take all measures necessary to prevent, investigate and establish

accountability for enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention;

(iii)

To take all measures necessary to ensure the provision of adequate healthcare

to persons with disabilities in detention, in accordance with the Committee’s

guidelines on the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities and the

Nelson Mandela Rules, as well as reasonable accommodation, including in relation to

ensuring effective access to and participation in judicial and complaint procedures;

(iv)

To ensure that mechanisms competent to monitor detention and consider

complaints are independent and effective;

(v)

To give due consideration to abolishing the death penalty;

(vi)

To provide sufficient, regular training on the scope of the Convention and the

Optional Protocol thereto to prison officials and other law enforcement personnel.

11.

In accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 76 of the Committee’s

rules of procedure, the State Party should submit to the Committee, within six months, a

written response, including information on any action taken in the light of the present Views

and the recommendations of the Committee.

44 CRPD/C/SAU/CO/1.