Opinion; Subjects: QATAR, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.18-12987(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its eighty-first session, 17–26 April 2018
Opinion No. 29/2018 concerning Abdulrahman bin Omair Rashed al
Jabr al Nuaimi (Qatar)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 33/30.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 25 January 2018 the
Working Group transmitted to the Government of Qatar a communication concerning
Abdulrahman bin Omair Rashed al Jabr al Nuaimi. The Government has not replied to the
communication. The State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
General Assembly
Distr.: General
7 August 2018
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Abdulrahman bin Omair Rashed al Jabr al Nuaimi is a 63-year-old Qatari national.
He is a university professor of modern and contemporary history and a human rights
advocate. He usually resides in Doha with his wife and seven children.
Background information
5.
According to the source, in December 2013, Mr. Al Nuaimi was listed by the United
States of America Department of the Treasury as a “financer and facilitator of terrorism”.
Subsequently, he was also listed by the Security Council’s committee on sanctions against
Al-Qaida, among others. The source is not aware of any evidence having been submitted by
the Treasury to support those allegations. Mr. Al Nuaimi reportedly denied all charges and
officially notified the United States authorities, as well as the United Nations Sanctions
Committee, of his willingness to fully cooperate in order to prove his innocence. He
published an official statement declaring that he was ready to stand trial for any such
allegations in the United States.
6.
The source indicates that, for about two years and despite the above-mentioned
listings and linked allegations, the Qatari authorities did not prosecute Mr. Al Nuaimi. The
source submits that this was due to the lack of material evidence against him. However,
there was reportedly a marked change following the 2015 Gulf crisis, during which Bahrain,
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates accused Qatar of not abiding by the Gulf
Cooperation Council’s principles and of supporting Islamist groups.
7.
The source submits that, following the pressure that those events and certain other
Gulf countries put on Qatar, in October 2015, the Qatari State Prosecutor’s office opened a
case against Mr. Al Nuaimi, presenting two witness testimonies. He was accused, during
the period between 2010 and 2015, of having collected funds for armed groups in Egypt,
Libya, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen to commit terrorist acts. It was
alleged that he was providing these groups with material and financial aid and supplies,
while also being aware of their aims. The source notes that the charges filed against Mr. Al
Nuaimi by the Qatari Public Prosecutor reflected exactly the accusations made against him
by the United States Treasury.
8.
On 30 May 2016, the day of Mr. Al Nuaimi’s sentencing hearing, the chief witness
for the prosecution, a Qatari national security officer, reportedly withdrew his testimony in
front of the Criminal Court of Doha. The second testimony made by a financial analyst did
not suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt Mr. Al Nuaimi’s role as a terrorist financier.
Hence, on 30 May 2016, the Court issued its judgment and declared Mr. Al Nuaimi
innocent of all charges.
9.
The source indicates that the Public Prosecutor did not appeal this decision. The
time limit for appeal expired after 30 days, and the finding of innocence became final
according to article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10.
The source also indicates that, upon a request by Mr. Al Nuaimi, the Ministry of the
Interior and the National Counter Terrorism Committee issued a certificate on 12 July 2016
attesting to his innocence and non-implication in any activity related to the financing of
terrorism.
Arrest and detention
11.
The source reports that, on 10 July 2017 at approximately 8 p.m., State Security
Forces arrested Mr. Al Nuaimi while he was driving his car in the centre of Doha. They
asked him to accompany them to the Public Prosecutor’s office. He reportedly refused and
asked them to join him in his car to avoid being publicly placed in a police car without
understanding the reason for his arrest.
12.
According to the source, Mr. Al Nuaimi was subsequently arrested without a
warrant and without being informed verbally or otherwise of the reasons for his arrest or
any charges against him. He was then brought to the headquarters of the State Security
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
3
Forces, where he was detained and told by one of the officers that the Public Prosecutor had
appealed his acquittal of May 2016 and that his arrest was related to the previous charges
held against him. According to the source, a senior prosecutor also visited him and said that
the arrest was meant to protect him and that it was a consequence of the pressure exercised
by the United States on Qatar as Mr. Al Nuaimi had repeatedly been mentioned as a
financier of terrorism in the media coverage of rival Gulf States in the context of the June
2017 Gulf crisis.
13.
In this respect, the source highlights that Mr. Al Nuaimi was largely portrayed by
national media outlets in Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as an
important State official implicated in financing terrorism to destabilize the region. The
source believes that these allegations illustrate that the accusations made against Mr. Al
Nuaimi were politically motivated.
14.
According to the source, Mr. Al Nuaimi’s arrest coincided with the visit of the
Qatari Foreign Minister to Washington on 27 June 2017. The source also submits that the
visit of the United States Secretary of State to Doha on 11 July 2017 to sign a joint
agreement aimed at combating the financing of terrorism should be noted. Qatar was
reportedly the first Gulf State to sign a memorandum of understanding with the United
States on combating terrorism, with the Qatari Foreign Minister claiming that this was
unrelated to the pressure being applied by fellow Gulf States. The source thus submits that
there is a noteworthy correlation between the pressure of the United States and
neighbouring Gulf States on Qatar to clamp down on suspected terrorists and the arrest of
Mr. Al Nuaimi.
15.
The source reports that, a few days after his arrest, Mr. Al Nuaimi carried out a
hunger strike, which lasted for about 18 days, in order to protest against the arbitrariness of
his detention. He was then transferred from the headquarters of the State Security Forces to
an unofficial detention facility in Doha.
16.
At the time of the submission by the source, nearly four months after his initial
arrest, Mr. Al Nuaimi had not been interrogated, neither in relation to the case in which he
had been acquitted in May 2016, nor in relation to any new accusations against him. He had
been denied access to legal representation, he did not know the reason for his detention and
he had not been formally charged. He had not been afforded access to medical care despite
having a heart condition. He had only been allowed visits from his sons; no other members
of his family, including his wife and daughters, had been permitted to visit him.
17.
The source indicates that Mr. Al Nuaimi was told by the Public Prosecutor that he
could be held for at least six months before being brought before a judicial authority, in
conformity with the provisions of Law No. 3/2004 on Combating Terrorism.
18.
In this respect, the source refers to article 18 of Law No. 3/2004, which prescribes
that the Public Prosecutor can order detention for up to 15 days for anyone suspected of
having committed a terrorist crime, which can be extended for similar periods of time for
up to 6 months without a court order. Mr. Al Nuaimi has been brought before the Public
Prosecutor, who has prolonged his detention every 15 days in accordance with article 18.
Trial proceedings
19.
According to the source, the first trial hearing took place on 23 October 2017 and
was attended by Mr. Al Nuaimi’s lawyer, as well as some observers and a representative of
the National Human Rights Committee. However, Mr. Al Nuaimi himself was absent as the
Public Prosecutor had denied him permission to travel from prison to the court. The source
submits that the intended and actual effect of this was to postpone the full hearing.
20.
The source indicates that the judge merely affirmed that an appeal of Mr. Al
Nuaimi’s acquittal by the Public Prosecutor had been officially registered by the Court of
Criminal Appeal under No. 810/2017. Mr. Al Nuaimi’s lawyer demanded that the judge
specify whether the court would accept the request to appeal the acquittal of May 2016,
which the judge could have done in the absence of Mr. Al Nuaimi. His lawyer explained
that the appeal time had passed. However, the judge retreated, refused to answer the lawyer
and disregarded his memorials and submissions. The Public Prosecutor requested that the
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
4
hearing be postponed and the judge immediately postponed the hearing until 27 November
2017 without addressing any of the points made by Mr. Al Nuaimi’s lawyer. The hearing
was subsequently postponed again until 28 January 2018.
Analysis of violations
21.
In the light of the above, the source argues that Mr. Al Nuaimi’s detention falls
under categories I and III of the categories applicable to the consideration of cases by the
Working Group, as his detention lacks any legal basis and is marked by violations of fair
trial safeguards. He has not been informed of the case against him, or afforded a fair
opportunity to reply or the opportunity to exercise his right to challenge the legality of his
arrest before a competent authority.
Category I — absence of legal basis
22.
The source submits that the arrest and detention of Mr. Al Nuaimi falls under
category I as no legal basis has been officially invoked by the authorities to justify his
deprivation of liberty from the time of his arrest on 10 July 2017.
23.
The source notes that, if the reasoning for his detention is the Public Prosecutor’s
appeal against his original acquittal in May 2016, article 276 of the Criminal Procedure
Code holds that the appeal period is 30 days from the date of sentencing. Article 280 of the
Code further specifies that the Court will refuse any appeal if it is filed after the legally
specified date. The source thus submits that, if the basis of Mr. Al Nuaimi’s detention were
to be for the reasons specified by the officer upon his arrest, his detention is in clear
violation of national legislation.
24.
The source also submits that, if the detention is made on this basis, it falls short of
international standards of the force of res judicata and is subsequently void of a legal basis.
In this respect, the source refers to article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice, which states, inter alia, that the Court, the function of which is to decide in
accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, should apply the
general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.1
25.
However, the source submits that the fact that Mr. Al Nuaimi has not been clearly
informed of the reason for his arrest or detention is evidence enough of its arbitrariness.
During his first trial hearing on 23 October 2017, the judge reportedly mentioned that his
detention was related to an affair other than his previous acquittal, without stating the actual
reason for his arrest. According to the source, both these facts visibly illustrate the lack of
respect for due process and point to the lack of legal basis justifying Mr. Al Nuaimi’s
detention.
Category III — non-observance of international fair trial norms
26.
The source submits that Mr. Al Nuaimi’s detention is arbitrary due to the violations
of fair trial rights that he has suffered from the onset of his arrest.
Arbitrary arrest
27.
As stated above, Mr. Al Nuaimi was reportedly arrested by State Security Force
officers who did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest, nor did they provide him with
a warrant, in contravention of principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
1 The source notes that similar provisions are also found in article 14 (6) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, and article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
5
Violations of the right of habeas corpus and of the right to be brought promptly before a
judicial authority
28.
According to the source, Mr. Al Nuaimi has not been brought before a judicial
authority, in violation of principle 11 of the Body of Principles, which asserts that a person
should not be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard
promptly by a judicial or other authority. Mr. Al Nuaimi has thus been unable to challenge
the lawfulness of his detention in violation of principle 32 of the Body of Principles, which
explicitly grants him this right. The source notes that the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention has further asserted that habeas corpus is in itself a human right that can be
inferred from articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see
A/HRC/19/57, para. 59).
29.
Moreover, the source submits that the provisions stipulated in article 18 of Law
No. 3/2014 on Combating Terrorism contravene the right of a detainee to habeas corpus. In
this respect, the source notes that the Working Group has explicitly stated that these rights
also apply to terrorism suspects and has set as a principle that persons charged with terrorist
acts should be brought before a competent judicial authority, as soon as possible, and no
later than within a reasonable time period and that the person detained on charges of
terrorist activities should enjoy the effective right to habeas corpus following their
detention (see A/HRC/10/21, para. 54 (e)).
30.
The source also notes that the Human Rights Committee has stated that an essential
safeguard against arbitrary arrest is reasonable suspicion that would satisfy an objective
observer that the person may have committed the offence (see A/HRC/22/44, para. 62).2
The prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the right to bring proceedings
before a court in order to challenge the legality of the detention are non-derogable under
treaty and customary international law, even during states of emergency.3 Article 14 (2) of
the Arab Charter on Human Rights also explicitly recognizes the non-derogable nature of
this right.
31.
The source further notes that, if it is the case that Mr. Al Nuaimi is held in relation to
a counter-terrorism allegation — which has not been made clear to him — counter-
terrorism laws must still comply with international standards. Laws regarding terrorism and
associated offences, whether within the context of national or international acts, must be
accessible, clearly defined, formulated with precision, and non-discriminatory and non-
retroactive (see General Assembly resolution 63/185, para. 18, and E/CN.4/2006/98,
para. 49). However, according to the source, no such charge has been made available to Mr.
Al Nuaimi in any event.
32.
In the light of the above, the source submits that the violations of Mr. Al Nuaimi’s
rights under fair trial norms are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an
arbitrary character, falling under category III.
Response from the Government
33.
On 25 January 2018, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government through its regular communication procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, before 26 March 2018, detailed information about
the current situation of Mr. Al Nuaimi and any comments on the source’s allegations.
34.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government
to that communication. Nor did the Government request an extension of the time limit for
its reply, as provided for in the Working Group’s methods of work.
2 See also Madani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/89/D/1172/2003).
3 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29 on derogations from provisions of the
Covenant during a state of emergency, para. 11.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
6
Recent developments
35.
According to the source, Mr. Al Nuaimi was released on 28 February 2018 after
being held for eight months.
36.
Furthermore, the prosecution is reportedly now building a new case against Mr. Al
Nuaimi based on the additional intelligence provided by the United States after the two
countries signed a counter-terrorism memorandum of understanding in July 2017.4
Discussion
37.
Following Mr. Al Nuaimi’s release on 28 February 2018, the Working Group has
the option of filing the case or rendering an opinion as to the arbitrariness of the detention,
in conformity with paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work. In this particular case, based on
the circumstances, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion, in
conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
38.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (see
A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge
the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
39.
The Working Group wishes to reaffirm that the Government has the obligation to
respect, protect and fulfil the right to liberty of person and that any national law allowing
deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented in conformity with the relevant
international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
applicable international or regional instruments. Consequently, even if the detention is in
conformity with national legislation, regulations and practices, the Working Group must
assess whether such detention is also consistent with the relevant provisions of international
human rights law. 5 The Working Group considers that it is entitled to assess the
proceedings of a court and the law itself to determine whether they meet international
standards.6
Category I
40.
The Working Group will examine the relevant categories applicable to its
consideration of this case, including category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty
without invoking any legal basis.
41.
According to the information provided by the source, which the Government chose
not to contest, Mr. Al Nuaimi was arrested without the presentation of a warrant and he was
not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest or of any charges against him in
violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.7 In addition, Mr.
Al Nuaimi was not brought promptly before a judicial authority as stipulated in principle 11
of the Body of Principles.
42.
The Working Group expresses its concern at the uncertainty of the charges that the
Government has been trying to bring against Mr. Al Nuaimi. Even the prosecution appears
to have been unable or unwilling to make a decision in this regard months after the start of
Mr. Al Nuaimi’s detention and court hearings.
43.
If the Government has indeed been attempting to appeal Mr. Al Nuaimi’s original
acquittal in May 2016, as its latest official statement revealing his release in February 2018
4 See the statement by the Qatari Government Communications Office. Available at:
https://www.gco.gov.qa/en/2018/04/22/in-response-to-the-telegraph.
5 See opinions No. 94/2017, para. 47; No. 76/2017, para. 49; No. 1/2003, para. 17; No. 5/1999, para.
15; and No. 1/1998, para. 13.
6 See opinions No. 94/2017, para. 48; No. 88/2017, para. 24; No. 83/2017, para. 60; No. 76/2017, para.
50; and No. 33/2015, para. 80.
7 See also article 14 (1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
7
appears to indicate, the Working Group should conclude that Mr. Al Nuaimi’s arrest and
eight-month detention period violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, along with article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principle of ne bis in
idem.
44.
The Working Group also notes with concern that Mr. Al Nuaimi was transferred
from the headquarters of the State Security Forces to an unofficial detention facility in
Doha. The Working Group has consistently considered that placing and detaining someone
at a secret location is arbitrary per se, because no legal procedure has been followed,
thereby lacking any legal basis for the deprivation of liberty.8
45.
The Working Group further notes that the use of secret detention by the Government
of Qatar deprived Mr. Al Nuaimi of his right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention
before court in violation of principle 32 of the Body of Principles. The Working Group
wishes to reiterate that habeas corpus is a human right that can be inferred from articles 8, 9
and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see A/HRC/19/57, para. 59).
46.
The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Al Nuaimi’s arrest and detention
lack a legal basis and are thus arbitrary, falling under category I.
Category III
47.
The Working Group will now consider whether the violations of the right to a fair
trial and due process suffered by Mr. Al Nuaimi were of such gravity as to give his
deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III.
48.
The Working Group finds that the circumstances of this case are puzzling and
further observations are required. The general and underlining context of the case is the
fight against terrorism, with the information provided by the source about Mr. Al Nuaimi
being listed consecutively by the United States and the Security Council as a “financer and
facilitator of terrorism”. However, the resumption of a criminal case against him in Qatar
only occurred after a certain period of time. This raises serious concern about the ultimate
motive of the case, especially when well-known global practices after 11 September 2001,
such as secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, are involved. The source
provides some elements towards such a motive, with the references to Mr. Al Nuaimi’s
human rights advocacy and the indirect and/or implicit political dimensions. This is further
troubling to the Working Group, although the information is not sufficiently detailed for
any conclusive observations in that regard.
49.
Furthermore, the international context of the case is also of interest and one cannot
help but notice the references to other States whether within the region or beyond. While a
concerted effort among States is essential, each State must ensure respect for the fairness of
the proceedings that the individual is subjected to. As the Working Group and numerous
other relevant human rights mechanisms have consistently stated, respect for basic rights
can only strengthen the fight against terrorism and help States succeed. Any blatant
violation of basic rights, especially due process rights, would negatively affect the core
mission of countering terrorism. It is particularly important that the intelligence and law
enforcement agencies cooperate within the framework of the law, especially international
human rights law, which protect individuals facing the justice system. Compliance with the
rule of law will strengthen counter-terrorism and any disregard for such a rule only reduces
the potential for success. All States involved are jointly responsible for compliance with the
international norms.9
50.
Concerning the violations of the right to a fair trial and due process suffered by Mr.
Al Nuaimi in the present case, the Government of Qatar reportedly placed him in secret
detention, as he was detained at an unknown location in Doha. In 2010, the Working Group
and several special procedure mandate holders completed a joint study on global practices
in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism (A/HRC/13/42). In the
joint study, the experts reiterated that international law prohibits secret detention, which
8 See opinions No. 14/2009; No. 12/2006; and No. 11/2018. See also A/HRC/13/42.
9 In this regard, see A/HRC/10/3, paras. 37–38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
8
violates a number of human rights norms, including the right to a fair trial (paras. 27 and
282). The experts found that certain practices inherent in secret detention, such as the use of
secrecy and insecurity caused by the denial of contact with the outside world, place
detainees in a situation of heightened vulnerability to violations of the right to a fair trial,
including forced confession of guilt, denial of the presumption of innocence, inability to
challenge the lawfulness of the detention, denial of access to legal representation, as well as
torture and ill-treatment.10 Moreover, during its thirty-seventh session, the Human Rights
Council adopted a resolution in which it stressed that no one should be held in secret
detention and urged States to ensure that all persons held in detention under their authority
were provided with access to the courts and to investigate all alleged cases of secret
detention, including under the pretext of countering terrorism.11
51.
In the present case, the use of secret detention by the Government of Qatar also
deprived Mr. Al Nuaimi of his right to legal assistance during his detention, and it denied
him the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate freely with the counsel of his own choosing.12 In doing so, the Government of
Qatar violated articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as
principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles. The Government also placed Mr. Al Nuaimi
beyond the protection of the law, in violation of his right to recognition as a person before
the law under article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.13
52.
As noted above, Mr. Al Nuaimi has not been brought promptly before a judicial
authority, and he was not allowed to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a
court. Such practice also has the danger of seriously undermining the exercise of the right
to defence. The Working Group also reiterates its concern at legal provisions, such as
article 18 of Law No. 3/2014 on Combating Terrorism, that negate the right to judicial
supervision and review of detention even while countering terrorism (see A/HRC/10/21,
para. 54 (e)).
53.
The Working Group further notes that the Public Prosecutor prevented Mr. Al
Nuaimi from attending his first court hearing on 23 October 2017, allegedly in order to
delay the full hearings. Regardless of the Government’s motive, Mr. Al Nuaimi’s right to
be tried in his presence was ignored. The judge’s willingness to accede to the Government’s
repeated requests for postponement of the proceedings also prejudiced Mr. Al Nuaimi’s
right to be tried without undue delay and raises questions about the fairness of his trial.
54.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that the violations of Mr.
Al Nuaimi’s fair trial rights are of such gravity as to render his deprivation of liberty
arbitrary, falling within category III.
Disposition
55.
Although Mr. Al Nuaimi has been released, the Working Group, in accordance with
paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, reserves the right to render an opinion as to
whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release. In the light of
the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Abdulrahman bin Omair Rashed al Jabr al Nuaimi,
being in contravention of articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
56.
The Working Group requests the Government of Qatar to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Al Nuaimi without delay and bring it into conformity with the
relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
10 See also opinions No. 14/2009, para. 21, and No. 5/2001, para. 10 (iii), in which the Working Group
found that secret detention was a violation per se of the right to a fair trial under category III.
11 See resolution 37/3, paras. 6 and 8–9. See also A/HRC/13/42, para. 26.
12 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines, principle 9 and guideline 8. See opinions No.
63/2017, No. 21/2017 and No. 48/2016.
13 See also opinions No. 47/2017, para. 25; and No. 46/2017, para. 23.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/29
9
57.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Mr. Al Nuaimi an enforceable right to
compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
58.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al
Nuaimi and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
59.
The Working Group encourages the Government to ratify the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols.
Follow-up procedure
60.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al
Nuaimi;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Al
Nuaimi’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of Qatar with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
61.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
62.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
63.
The Government should disseminate through all available means the present opinion
among all stakeholders.
64.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.14
[Adopted on 24 April 2018]
14 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.