A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

GE.21-06745(E)

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its ninetieth session, 3–12 May 2021

Opinion No. 2/2021 concerning Kameel Juma Mansoor Salman Hasan

(Bahrain)

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. 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 42/22.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 3 December 2020 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Bahrain a communication concerning Kameel Juma

Mansoor Salman Hasan. The Government replied to the communication on 29 January 2021.

The State is 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).

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

General Assembly

Distr.: General

28 May 2021

Original: English

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

2

Submissions

Communication from the source

4.

Kameel Juma Mansoor Salman Hasan is a Bahraini national born in 2003. Mr. Hasan

is a secondary school student and the son of female Bahraini civil society activist and former

prisoner of conscience Najah Ahmed Habib Yusuf.2

Background

5.

On 23 April 2017, at the age of 14, Mr. Hasan was reportedly investigated by officers

from the National Security Agency in the security compound in Muharraq, with his mother,

Ms. Yusuf. The source states that Ms. Yusuf had been summoned under false pretences

concerning charges brought against her son. During this investigation, National Security

Agency officers threatened Ms. Yusuf with the arrest of her son to compel her to work with

them as a secret informant.

6.

According to the source, Ms. Yusuf was taken into custody two days later and was

charged on 25 May 2017 without the presence of a lawyer. She was subsequently sentenced

to three years’ imprisonment by the Fourth Criminal Court of Bahrain on charges of: (a)

setting up several social media pages that promoted terrorist activities, incited hate for the

Government and promoted marches against the Government; (b) sharing videos that incited

the latter; and (c) contacting people who had previously been stripped of their citizenship,

and sending false information to them. On 10 August 2019, Ms. Yusuf was released from

prison.

Arrest and detention

7.

The source reports that on 24 August 2019, two weeks after the release of Ms. Yusuf,

Mr. Hasan’s home was raided by Bahraini security personnel. Mr. Hasan was chased by

security forces through the street following a failed attempt to apprehend him. His father

subsequently began receiving repeated telephone calls summoning Mr. Hasan for

investigation.

8.

According to the source, Mr. Hasan maintains that the security forces that participated

in the attempted arrest were an officer and a first lieutenant from the National Security

Agency. These officers had also been involved in the previous interrogation of Mr. Hasan

and his mother, Ms. Yusuf, at the security complex in Muharraq following her detention in

April 2017.

9.

Mr. Hasan was the subject of several summonses relating to charges of illegal

assembly, rioting, possession and manufacture of explosive and usable incendiary bottles,

arson, intentionally endangering the safety of private transportation, membership of a

terrorist group, and supporting and funding a terrorist group.

10.

On 30 December 2019, Mr. Hasan’s father received a telephone call from Nabih Saleh

Police Station summoning his son to the police station.

11.

On 31 December 2019, owing to continued pressure exerted by the Bahraini

authorities on Mr. Hasan’s friends and family, Mr. Hasan was taken to Nabih Saleh Police

Station by his father, at Mr. Hasan’s request and of his own volition. Mr. Hasan was arrested

and was transferred on the same day to the Criminal Investigation Directorate. That day, three

separate cases were reportedly brought against him, on charges of manufacture and

possession of explosive and usable bottles, intentional arson, illegal assembly and rioting.

12.

According to the source, Ms. Yusuf was informed of Mr. Hasan’s transfer to the

Criminal Investigation Directorate after she went to Nabih Saleh Police Station demanding

to know his whereabouts. After waiting 24 hours, she began telephoning the Directorate. The

Directorate neither confirmed nor denied Mr. Hasan’s presence there. Ms. Yusuf kept calling

the Directorate on 2 and 3 January 2020, demanding that her son be allowed to call her so

2 Ms. Yusuf was the subject of opinion No. 31/2019.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

3

that she could verify his condition. On 3 January 2020, the Directorate informed her that Mr.

Hasan was fine and would call her soon.

13.

During a call to his mother on 3 January 2020, Mr. Hasan reportedly told her that he

had been taken to the Criminal Investigation Directorate on 31 December 2019 and then

taken to Al-Qalaa Hospital for tests in accordance with the standard arrest procedure.

14.

The source alleges that following these tests, Mr. Hasan was transferred to the

Criminal Investigation Directorate and subsequently to the Royal Academy of Police, where

he was subjected to torture and physical violence. During these interrogations, he was

subjected to repeated beatings all over his body, particularly focusing on his genitalia, and to

forced standing, among other forms of ill-treatment. According to the source, this treatment

amounted to torture.

15.

On 3 January 2020, Mr. Hasan was taken to the Criminal Investigation Directorate for

interrogation, where he signed pre-prepared records without being allowed to read them. He

was subsequently taken to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, where he signed pre-prepared

investigation records without being allowed to read them and without the presence of a

lawyer.

16.

Also on 3 January 2020, Mr. Hasan informed his mother that he had been taken to the

Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that he would be transferred to pretrial detention in the

Juvenile Reform and Rehabilitation Centre, at Dry Dock, a prison for convicts under the age

of 21, on the same day. On 5 January 2020, Mr. Hasan contacted his mother to inform her

that he had been transferred to the Dry Dock Detention Centre.

Trial hearings and sentencing

17.

According to the source, Mr. Hasan has faced over 20 separate prosecutions. The

charges brought against him on 31 December 2019 resulted in three three-year sentences,

totalling nine years of imprisonment. He was not present at his trials, which were conducted

in absentia, with the latest sentence issued on 13 September 2020. In total, Mr. Hasan was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 28 years and 10 months.

18.

On 30 June 2020, Mr. Hasan’s sentence was reduced, following an appeal under case

No. 13202000318, to 27 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, through alternative sentencing.

19.

The source adds that Mr. Hasan’s family was unable to obtain copies of the judgments

against him. His mother has been unable to obtain the necessary power of attorney and his

family has experienced delays in hiring a lawyer to represent them. They have only recently

received copies of the judgments.

20.

On 7 May 2020, Mr. Hasan’s law firm communicated to his mother its refusal to

represent him without the required power of attorney. Despite the fact that Mr. Hasan had

given power of attorney to his lawyer on 12 June 2020, at the outset of the latest case against

him, the power of attorney was only received by his lawyer on 30 June 2020.

Conditions of detention

21.

According to the source, Mr. Hasan is still subjected to beatings and torture away from

the cameras in the prison and his hair is frequently shaved as a form of psychological abuse.

While Mr. Hasan received some initial family visits, he has since been unable to receive such

visits as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

22.

On 30 September 2020, Mr. Hasan informed his family in a call that he had been taken

to the clinic and promised treatment for his dental condition. However, the source alleges

that Mr. Hasan signed a document stating that he had been taken to the clinic when, in reality,

he did not receive sufficient treatment or proper medication for his dental condition, his eye

pain or the swelling in his face. He only received pain relief medication, eye drops and

medication that reduced the swelling.

23.

Additionally, the prison administration discussed the possibility of Mr. Hasan

registering for school and taking examinations, which he and his family had been working

towards. Mr. Hasan became upset and depressed when he was later told that he would not be

registering for school and would not be able to continue his education. According to the

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

4

source, he also signed a document regarding his inability to register for school, which falsely

stated that his parents had failed to provide the necessary documents. As a result, Mr. Hasan,

who is still a minor, is being denied his right to education.

24.

The source states that the arrest and ill-treatment of Mr. Hasan constitute a targeting

and retaliation against his mother, Ms. Yusuf, after her release as a result of pressure from

various external parties. During the investigation phase, the investigating officials asked Mr.

Hasan questions relating to his mother’s political activity and whether his mother was still

writing to organizations or to the media.

Analysis of violations

25.

The source submits that Mr. Hasan’s arrest and detention are based on his mother’s

political activity, which is protected by the rights to freedom of opinion and expression

enshrined in article 19 of the Covenant. The source recalls that on 23 April 2017, Mr. Hasan

was initially investigated at the age of 14 by individuals from the National Security Agency

when he was with his mother in the security compound in Muharraq. He was threatened with

arrest if he refused to work with the National Security Agency as a secret informant. The

source argues that the basis for Mr. Hasan’s ongoing detention is political and is thus arbitrary

under category I. Furthermore, his detention is a reprisal for his mother’s activism.

26.

In addition, Mr. Hasan was not allowed legal representation during the interrogation,

the investigation and the pretrial process. Ms. Yusuf has not been able to hire a lawyer

because the power of attorney has not been transferred to the law firm representing him. The

source states that lawyers in Bahrain cannot provide legal representation without a power of

attorney. During this period the cases against Mr. Hasan continued, despite the delayed access

to legal counsel. Mr. Hasan was also not permitted to present exculpatory evidence, and he

was forced to sign a confession, without being able to review it, after being subjected to

torture. The source submits that the treatment of Mr. Hasan violates the obligations of

Bahrain under article 14 (3) (b), (d), (e) and (g) of the Covenant. His detention is therefore

arbitrary under category III.

27.

The source also submits that the failure of the arresting officers to present a warrant

at the time of Mr. Hasan’s arrest represents a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant read

in conjunction with article 19 (a) of the Constitution of Bahrain, article 357 of the Criminal

Code and article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which require that arrests be

conducted with a warrant in Bahrain.

28.

The source further submits that Mr. Hasan was subjected to enforced disappearance.

According to the source, Mr. Hasan was deprived of his liberty against his will by

government officials who failed to disclose his fate and whereabouts. Mr. Hasan’s

whereabouts remained unclear to his family for a period of 48 hours. Given that Mr. Hasan

is a minor, the authorities failed to disclose his whereabouts within a reasonable time. In

addition, Mr. Hasan’s sentence of 27 years and 10 months is disproportionate. Bahrain has

failed to take into account his age as a minor and the need to promote his rehabilitation, as

required by article 14 (4) of the Covenant. Mr. Hasan was a high school student at the time

of his arrest. He has been denied his right to education in prison as a result of the

administration’s false promises and the hindering of the registration process. This constitutes

a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

29.

Furthermore, the source reiterates that Mr. Hasan was subjected to beatings all over

his body, particularly his genitals, while being questioned at the Royal Academy of Police.

This treatment rises to the level of torture prohibited under article 1 of the Convention against

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He was also

subjected to forced standing for a period of two hours at the Academy. The source claims

that the purpose of this torture was to force Mr. Hasan to sign a pre-written confession, which

he eventually did sign. Additionally, Mr. Hasan has been subjected to psychological torture

and was threatened by National Security Agency officers at his first interrogation with his

mother in the Muharraq Security Complex at the age of 14. He has also been subjected to

continued compulsory shaving of his head while in prison and to periods of solitary

confinement. According to the source, this treatment is contrary to article 15 of the

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

5

Convention against Torture and violates Bahraini domestic law, including article 19 (d) of

the Constitution of Bahrain.

30.

In addition, on 25 March 2020, Mr. Hasan was charged with terrorism offences in

case No. 07202003543. The source argues that the definition of terrorism in Bahraini law is

overly broad and has been used by the authorities to target political opposition figures and

civil society actors. The source recalls that there is a history of political charges being brought

against members of Mr. Hasan’s family, and his arrest and sentencing are a form of

retribution against his family for their political activities. Mr. Hasan’s conviction on the basis

of an overly broad terrorism provision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty enshrined

in article 15 of the Covenant.

31.

Finally, the source notes that Mr. Hasan’s family has been unable to secure the

services of a lawyer despite Mr. Hasan having signed a power of attorney. Furthermore, Mr.

Hasan’s family is unwilling to file a complaint with the country’s human rights oversight

bodies, including the Ministry of the Interior Ombudsman and the National Institute for

Human Rights, for fear of retribution and in light of their perceived lack of independence and

efficacy. As a result, no complaint has been filed with any governmental or human rights

organizations. According to the source, this indicates the lack of independence of the human

rights oversight mechanisms and of lawyers in Bahrain.

Response from the Government

32.

On 3 December 2020, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source

to the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group

requested the Government to provide detailed information by 2 February 2021 about the

situation of Mr. Hasan. The Working Group also requested the Government to clarify the

legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the

obligations of Bahrain under international human rights law. Moreover, the Working Group

called upon the Government to ensure the physical and mental integrity of Mr. Hasan.

33.

The Government submitted its response on 29 January 2021. The Government states

that Mr. Hasan was prosecuted in 18 criminal cases, with the final case still pending before

the court. Mr. Hasan was charged with stealing and killing three dogs, participating in

gatherings and attacking law enforcement with Molotov cocktails, stones and spray paint

cans, setting fire to tyres, setting fire to a water tank, starting a fire with others, joining a

terrorist group and collecting money for the group, writing phrases on the ground, and arson.

Cumulatively, the courts sentenced him to 28 years and 10 months of imprisonment and

placed him under judicial probation for one year. Of the 18 criminal cases, 16 were

prosecuted by the Prosecutor for Terrorism, one was prosecuted by the Prosecutor for Family

and Children and one was prosecuted by the Office of the Prosecutor.

34.

According to the Government, the judiciary in Bahrain operates within a

comprehensive and binding legislative framework under which there are no exceptions or

discrimination, other than mitigating and aggravating circumstances in determining the

penalty to be applied. Members of the judicial authority, whether judges or prosecutors, may

not violate the procedural and punitive provisions of the law.

35.

All of the cases against Mr. Hasan proceeded in the same way as other cases in Bahrain

and in accordance with Bahraini law, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, of 2002,

which is consistent with international law and human rights principles. Moreover, the

judiciary is committed to providing the accused with all safeguards throughout the stages of

investigation and trial. This includes bringing the accused before the prosecution within 48

hours, except for terrorism offences, for which the deadline is 28 days.

36.

Under the law, arrested persons must immediately be informed of the reasons for their

arrest and the charges against them. Accused persons are confronted with the charges against

them and the penalties they are facing as soon as they appear before the prosecution. Any

complaint made by the accused in relation to the arrest or detention procedures or any harm

suffered as a result of treatment associated with those procedures is verified. Similarly, any

alleged harm from this treatment is investigated and presented to the forensic doctor at the

General Department of Forensic Evidence, affiliated with the Public Prosecution.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

6

37.

Furthermore, the Government notes that all interviews with suspects are conducted in

an appropriate facility. Suspects are permitted to speak freely, without being coerced in any

way. If a suspect feels unable to speak in front of an individual, that person is not allowed to

attend the interview. Suspects also have the right to remain silent and this is not taken as

evidence against them, as well as the right to have their lawyers attend any examinations.

Suspects may be detained only in detention centres established by law for this purpose. They

may contact a person of their choice to assist them in handling their personal affairs. In

addition, family members are permitted to visit them in the detention facility, and accused

persons may grant power of attorney, issue authorizations and correspond with third parties

in accordance with the Reform and Rehabilitation Institutions Act, provided that such actions

do not interfere with the collection of evidence or the conduct of the investigation. Accused

persons are also permitted to complete their studies and take exams.

38.

The Public Prosecution operates on a graduated supervision system in which the

actions and decisions of its members are subject to the supervision and evaluation of their

superiors. The law also allows the parties to appeal the Public Prosecutor’s decisions and

demand that they be overturned.

39.

According to the Government, the courts hear all cases in accordance with binding

legal procedures that may not be violated. If these procedures are not complied with, the

judgment may be declared a nullity. In criminal cases, the courts are obliged to ensure that

the proceedings are conducted with the full knowledge of the accused and that hearings are

public, except when it is considered that hearings should be held in private for the protection

of public morals or of witnesses and victims, particularly children. The accused is allowed to

seek the assistance of a lawyer. In felony cases, if the accused does not have a lawyer, one

will be appointed to defend him or her. The accused and his or her lawyer have the right to

present whatever statements and pleadings they deem fit. The courts are obliged to investigate

the substantive and legal submissions presented by the defence. If the accused remains silent,

this is not taken as evidence against him or her. A reasoned judgment is issued, covering all

aspects and details of the case.

40.

The courts may not base a judgment on evidence derived from an unlawful procedure.

Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the judge is to deliver a judgment

in the case according to his or her own conviction with complete freedom. However, the

judgment is not to be based on any evidence that has not been brought before the court. Every

statement that has been proven to have been given by an accused or a witness under coercion

or a threat thereof must be ignored and not relied upon.

41.

The evidence used to refer the accused to trial is a combination of oral evidence,

comprising witness testimony, and physical evidence and technical evidence, which includes

expert reports on seized items, traces and fingerprints. On the basis of all of this evidence,

the courts reach a verdict according to their conviction. The courts may not rely on the

testimony of the accused if there is uncertainty as to its reliability, but may rely on other

evidence derived with certainty from legitimate procedures if this is deemed satisfactory.

42.

The Government clarifies that the decisions, actions and rulings of the judiciary and

the Public Prosecution Service are subject to oversight, including through the right to lodge

an ordinary appeal against a judicial decision and to lodge an appeal with the Court of

Cassation, the highest court in the judicial system. Furthermore, the Judicial Inspection

Department and its equivalent in the Public Prosecution Service examine the work of judges

and prosecutors, and take the necessary measures to prove possible violations of the law. The

Judiciary Act gives the Attorney-General and the Supreme Judicial Council the power to

sanction and discipline those found guilty of wrongdoing.

43.

In regard to the present case, Mr. Hasan does not suffer from any chronic health

problems. He was examined and his vital signs were normal. A dental appointment and

medical appointment were scheduled for him to follow up on tooth pain and eye pain. The

Government emphasizes that Bahrain, through the Ministry of the Interior, is committed to

providing a healthy and appropriate environment for all inmates in reform and rehabilitation

centres. The doctor in each centre takes the measures required to preserve the health of all

inmates and pretrial detainees.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

7

44.

In addition, Mr. Hasan had four family visits in 2020, the last of which was on 24

February 2020. Visits were temporarily suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and video

calling was introduced in April 2020. Mr. Hasan had seven video calls and 72 telephone calls

to his relatives in 2020, most recently on 23 December 2020.

45.

According to the report of the Criminal Investigation Directorate, Mr. Hasan was

transferred from Nabih Saleh Police Station on 31 December 2019, as he was wanted in

connection with several cases and had been convicted in a number of others. The allegations

that he was subjected to torture and physical violence are unfounded. After he was transferred

from the police station, no records of his statements in relation to any of the previous cases

were taken, as those cases had either already been tried or were pending before the court. On

2 January 2020, Mr. Hasan was brought before the Public Prosecution to sign an appeal

against a judgment against him, after which he was transferred to the Dry Dock pretrial

detention centre on 5 January 2020. He completed all the paperwork relating to his cases.

46.

The Special Investigation Unit is aware of allegations that Mr. Hasan has been

subjected to torture, and has ordered an investigation. All necessary measures are being taken,

even though no complaint was submitted to the Unit by Mr. Hasan, his family or his lawyer.

47.

According to the Government, continuing education is one of the correctional

programmes provided by the General Directorate of Reform and Rehabilitation for inmates

and detainees, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education. All inmates are informed of the

deadline set by the Ministry of Education for submission of the documents required to

complete their education. After reviewing the application submitted by Mr. Hasan, it was

found that he had not submitted the required documents by the specified deadline, and he

was therefore not enrolled in the continuing education programme. The Government states

that he did sign any document in this regard.

Additional comments from the source

48.

The source submits that the Government did not address several important issues in

its response, including that the authorities had begun targeting Mr. Hasan with charges of

illegal assembly and arson since his mother’s arrest in 2017, and that Mr. Hasan was

threatened with arrest if he refused to work with the National Security Agency as a secret

informant.

49.

According to the source, the Government also failed to respond to allegations relating

to the lack of access to legal representation and to proper trial procedures not being followed.

In particular, the Government has not responded on the matters of the alleged arrest without

a warrant, the enforced disappearance of Mr. Hasan, his forced confession, the absence of

Mr. Hasan’s lawyer during the interrogation, and the trials in absentia.

50.

Furthermore, contrary to the information provided by the Government, Mr. Hasan was

allowed less than a third of the number of video calls that he was supposed to have with his

family. The source also reiterates that Mr. Hasan has been suffering from eye and tooth pain

since June 2020, but has been denied medical treatment under the pretext of the COVID-19

pandemic. Finally, the source acknowledges that Mr. Hasan’s family was unable to submit

the application relating to his continued education prior to the deadline. This was due to the

fact that prisoners are informed about the application procedure, who in turn must inform

their family. Mr. Hasan was able to call his family and tell them about the application, a few

days after submissions had already opened. Moreover, there was a technical error on the

website for submitting applications. As a result, Mr. Hasan was denied his education, due to

inefficient communication between the authorities and his guardians, as well as to the

administration’s refusal to accept applications after the deadline despite the challenges

arising from the pandemic.

Discussion

51.

The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.

52.

In determining whether the detention of Mr. Hasan is arbitrary, the Working Group

has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If

the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

8

constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the

Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.3 Mere assertions by the Government that

lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.4

53.

The Working Group notes that Mr. Hasan is no longer a minor at the time of adoption

of the present opinion. However, he was under 18 years of age at the time of his arrest,

detention and convictions,5 and his case will be considered in light of the obligations of

Bahrain under international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the

Child.

Category I

54.

The source states that on 31 December 2019, owing to continued pressure exerted by

the authorities on Mr. Hasan’s friends and family, Mr. Hasan was taken to Nabih Saleh Police

Station by his father, at Mr. Hasan’s request and of his own volition. Mr. Hasan was then

arrested and transferred to the Criminal Investigation Directorate. According to the source, a

warrant was not presented to Mr. Hasan at the time of his arrest, contrary to the requirement

under Bahraini law that arrests be conducted with a warrant. The Government did not address

any of these allegations.

55.

According to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one shall be deprived of liberty except

on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The

Working Group considers that the source has presented a credible case – which was not

rebutted by the Government – that Mr. Hasan was not presented with a warrant at the time of

his arrest, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.6 By failing to present an arrest warrant,

the authorities also violated article 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which

requires that the arrest of a child be in conformity with the law. An arrest warrant is an

important means of ensuring that the authorities have considered the involvement of an

individual in an alleged criminal act and determined that there is a sufficient legal basis for

their arrest.7 In the absence of an arrest warrant, the authorities failed to establish a legal basis

for Mr. Hasan’s arrest and detention.

56.

Moreover, it appears that Mr. Hasan was not brought promptly before a judge

following his arrest. According to the source, following his arrest, Mr. Hasan was transferred

to the Criminal Investigation Directorate on 31 December 2019 and then taken to Al-Qalaa

Hospital for tests. He was then transferred to the Criminal Investigation Directorate and the

Royal Academy of Police, where he was allegedly subjected to torture and physical violence

during his interrogation. On 3 January 2020, Mr. Hasan was reportedly taken back to the

Directorate and then to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Mr. Hasan’s mother was unable to

speak with him or verify his condition and whereabouts until 3 January 2020, three days after

his arrest.

57.

According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal

charge is to be brought promptly before a judge. The Human Rights Committee has stated

that a strict standard of promptness applies to juveniles, who should be brought before a court

within 24 hours of arrest.8 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has confirmed that a

similar requirement exists under article 37 (d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

and that every child deprived of liberty should be brought before a competent authority within

24 hours to examine the legality of the deprivation of liberty or its continuation.9 It appears

that this deadline was not met. The information provided by the parties does not suggest that

3 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

4 Ibid.

5 Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 1.

6 Opinion No. 36/2018, paras. 39–40 (finding that the failure to present an arrest warrant to an

individual who had presented himself at a police station violated art. 9 (1) of the Covenant).

7 Opinions Nos. 59/2019, 46/2019 and 33/2019 (finding that it is not sufficient that there is a law

authorizing the arrest; the authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the case through an

arrest warrant).

8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33; and opinions No. 73/2019, para.

82; and No. 14/2015, para. 29.

9 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 90.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

9

Mr. Hasan was brought before a judicial authority within 24 hours of his arrest. While the

Government states that Mr. Hasan was brought before the Public Prosecutor on 2 January

2020, two days after his arrest, a prosecutorial body cannot be considered a judicial authority

for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.10 As a result, the Government did not

establish a legal basis for Mr. Hasan’s detention, and did not meet the requirements of article

9 (3) of the Covenant, article 37 (d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and rule

10.2 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile

Justice (the Beijing Rules).

58.

The Working Group further observes that Mr. Hasan was not afforded the right to take

proceedings before a court so that it may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his

detention, in violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant. According to the source, Mr. Hasan

did not have a lawyer during his interrogation and pretrial process, an essential safeguard that

might have assisted in challenging the legal basis for his detention.11 It appears that he was

also unable to contact his mother within the first three days of his detention. The Working

Group considers that Mr. Hasan’s lack of access to a lawyer and his family was unacceptable,

given that he was a minor at the time. Moreover, as the Working Group has noted, it is

essential for detained children to have prompt and effective access to an independent and

child-sensitive process to determine the legal basis of their detention and to receive

appropriate and accessible remedies without delay.12 Without such access, Mr. Hasan was

denied his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

59.

The source further alleges that Mr. Hasan was subjected to enforced disappearance

between his arrest on 31 December 2019 and 3 January 2020, when he was able to call his

mother to let her know his location. According to the source, Mr. Hasan’s mother had made

calls to the Criminal Investigation Directorate demanding to know his whereabouts, but the

Directorate had neither confirmed nor denied Mr. Hasan’s presence there. The Government

did not address these allegations. The Working Group considers that the source has submitted

a credible case – which was not rebutted by the Government – that Mr. Hasan was subjected

to enforced disappearance. That is, he was deprived of his liberty against his will by

government officials who refused to disclose his fate and whereabouts. 13 His enforced

disappearance violated articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and article 37 (b) of the Convention

on the Rights of the Child, and constituted a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary

detention without legal basis.14 Mr. Hasan was placed outside the protection of the law, in

violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the

Covenant. 15 The Working Group will refer the present case to the Working Group on

Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

60.

Finally, both the source and the Government refer to the fact that Mr. Hasan was

charged with terrorism offences. The source alleges that the definition of terrorism under

Bahraini law is overly broad. However, the Working Group lacks sufficient information

10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32; and opinions Nos. 5/2020 and

73/2019.

11 Opinions No. 61/2020, para. 70; and No. 40/2020, para. 29; and United Nations Basic Principles and

Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring

Proceedings Before a Court (A/HRC/30/37), principle 10. See also the United Nations Standard

Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), rule 7.1; the

Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 37 (d); and the Committee on the Rights of the Child,

general comment No. 24 (2019), paras. 47–53.

12 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone

Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 18 and guideline 18.

13 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, para. 21. While Mr. Hasan was taken “at his request and of his own volition” to

Nabih Saleh Police Station, the source states that he did so after continued pressure by the authorities

on his friends and family. The Working Group considers that he was detained against his will.

14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17; and opinions No. 11/2020, para.

41; No. 6/2020, para. 43; and No. 5/2020, para. 74.

15 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paras. 35–36, and opinions No. 5/2020, paras. 73–74; and No. 59/2019, para.

50.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

10

concerning the specific definition or provision of the legal framework that Mr. Hasan was

charged under to be able to make any specific findings on this issue.

61.

The Working Group concludes that the detention of Mr. Hasan is arbitrary under

category I.

Category II

62.

While the source did not make any allegations under category II, the Working Group

considers it appropriate to analyse the information provided by both parties under this

category of its methods of work.

63.

Both the source and the Government provided information indicating that Mr. Hasan

was convicted of a number of offences relating to his participation in gatherings and

demonstrations, as well as to illegal assembly. There is no information to suggest, however,

that Mr. Hasan was detained for the peaceful exercise of his rights, such as the rights to

freedom of opinion and expression, and assembly.16 The Government states that Mr. Hasan

was convicted of violent acts during these gatherings, including attacking law enforcement

officers with Molotov cocktails, stones and spray paint cans and setting fire to tyres. In these

circumstances, the Working Group does not have sufficient information at its disposal to find

that Mr. Hasan was detained as a result of exercising his rights under international human

rights law within category II.

Category III

64.

The Working Group considers that the information submitted by the source discloses

multiple violations of the right of Mr. Hasan to a fair trial. While the Government provided

information on the legislative framework in Bahrain that makes provision for various fair

trial rights, it did not specifically address most of the source’s allegations under this category.

The Government did, however, deny that Mr. Hasan had been subjected to torture and

physical violence, discussed below.

65.

The source alleges that Mr. Hasan has had limited access to legal representation.

According to the source, Mr. Hasan was not allowed legal representation during the

interrogation, the investigation and the pretrial process. Mr. Hasan was taken to the Public

Prosecutor’s Office on 3 January 2020, without a lawyer. Furthermore, the source reports

that Mr. Hasan’s power of attorney was signed on 12 June 2020, but was only received by

his lawyer on 30 June 2020, causing delays in his ability to retain legal representation. The

source notes that the proceedings against Mr. Hasan continued, despite the delayed access to

legal counsel. The Government did not address the alleged absence of legal counsel during

interrogations and the other restrictions reported by the source that affected Mr. Hasan’s right

to a fair trial.

66.

The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to

legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, including

immediately after their apprehension, and that such access is to be provided without delay.17

The Working Group considers that the source has established that Mr. Hasan did not have

access to a lawyer from the outset of his detention, as well as at other key stages, including

during his interrogation. As a result, Mr. Hasan was not afforded his right to adequate time

and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his

choosing under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, nor his rights under articles 37 (d) and 40

(2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prompt access to legal assistance

and to legal assistance in the preparation of his defence. States should ensure that a child is

guaranteed legal or other appropriate assistance from the outset of the proceedings, in the

16 This information might have included details of the location and context in which Mr. Hasan had

participated in demonstrations, what actions he was undertaking at the time, and his motivation for

doing so: see opinions No. 41/2020, para. 65; and No. 73/2019, para. 86.

17 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone

Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 9 and guideline 8;

Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 95 (e); and

CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, para. 44 (b).

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

11

preparation and presentation of the defence, and until all appeals and/or reviews are

exhausted.18 As noted earlier, Mr. Hasan did not have access to his family during this period,

which further contributed to the lack of fairness during the proceedings.

67.

In addition, the source makes several allegations relating to procedural aspects of the

proceedings brought against Mr. Hasan. First, the source alleges that Mr. Hasan was tried in

absentia, in violation of the right to be tried in his presence under article 14 (3) (d) of the

Covenant. The information provided by the source indicates that a decision was issued in the

absence of Mr. Hasan in at least eleven of the proceedings against him.19 However, the source

also provided information showing the summonses issued in relation to the charges against

Mr. Hasan, and the procedural history of all the proceedings involving Mr. Hasan.20 These

documents indicate that summonses were issued for Mr. Hasan to attend the proceedings in

at least nine of his cases. In some of these cases, a summons appears to have been issued for

the same matter on more than one occasion. The summonses list the case number of each

matter, as well as the time and place of each required appearance. Each summons contains a

statement that if the individual does not appear before the court on the designated date, and

does not send a lawyer to represent him or her, the judgment can be issued in his or her

absence after review of the case file.

68.

According to the Human Rights Committee, proceedings in the absence of the accused

are only compatible with article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant if the necessary steps are taken to

summon accused persons in a timely manner and to inform them beforehand about the date

and place of their trial and to request their attendance.21 In the present case, information

provided by the source suggests that the authorities attempted to advise Mr. Hasan of the

dates on which he was expected to be present in court in some cases, including those which

the source claimed were heard in absentia. The source also refers to a case in which it states

that Mr. Hasan was summoned, but it does not appear to have provided a copy of the

summons. In these circumstances, the Working Group considers that the source has not

established a credible prima facie case that Mr. Hasan was tried in absentia, and is unable to

find a violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.

69.

Furthermore, the source submits that Mr. Hasan was not permitted to present

exculpatory evidence, contrary to article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant and article 40 (2) (b) (iv)

of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the source did not provide any further

information or explanation of the nature of this exculpatory evidence and the impact of the

alleged failure to allow its presentation during the proceedings. As a result, the Working

Group is unable to determine whether there was a violation of Mr. Hasan’s rights owing to

the failure to allow him to present this evidence.

70.

Additionally, the source alleges that Mr. Hasan’s family was unable to obtain copies

of the judgments against him until recently. This appears to be due to the delay in transferring

the signed power of attorney to Mr. Hasan’s legal representatives. While a convicted person

has the right to access a duly reasoned, written judgment of the trial court in order to be able

to exercise the right to appeal effectively under article 14 (5) of the Covenant,22 it is not clear

to the Working Group whether and how any actions by the authorities violated this right in

Mr. Hasan’s case. The source did not provide any information to suggest that the authorities

were involved in delaying the transfer of the signed power of attorney from Mr. Hasan to his

lawyers or that the authorities failed to provide copies of the judgments to his family. In the

absence of such information, the Working Group is unable to find a violation of article 14

(5) of the Covenant or of article 40 (2) (b) (v) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

18 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 49; and the Beijing

Rules, rule 15.

19 A list of the cases is annexed to the source’s original submission.

20 In annexes D and E of the source’s original submission. It is not clear whether annex D contains a

complete list of all summonses issued in the matters relating to Mr. Hasan. No summons was attached

in relation to five of the matters relating to Mr. Hasan.

21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 36.

22 Ibid., para. 49. See also the Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019),

para. 62.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

12

71.

Finally, the source alleges that Mr. Hasan was subjected to torture and ill-treatment

while at the Royal Academy of Police on 3 January 2020 in order to coerce a confession from

him. This allegedly included being subjected to beatings all over his body, particularly

focusing on his genitals, and being forced to stand for two hours. The source alleges that Mr.

Hasan is still being subjected to beatings and torture as well as to psychological abuse in

prison, including the forced shaving of his head.

72.

In its response, the Government asserts that the allegations that Mr. Hasan was

subjected to torture and physical violence are unfounded. After he was transferred from

Nabih Saleh Police Station, no records of his statements in relation to any of the previous

cases were taken, as those cases had either already been tried or were pending before the

court. On 2 January 2020, Mr. Hasan was brought before the Public Prosecution to sign an

appeal against a judgment against him, after which he was transferred to the Dry Dock pretrial

detention centre on 5 January 2020. According to the Government, the Special Investigation

Unit has ordered an investigation into the allegations of torture and all necessary measures

are being taken, even though no complaint was submitted to the Unit by Mr. Hasan, his family

or his lawyer.

73.

However, the Government’s response does not fully address the source’s claims. The

Government does not specifically respond to the allegations of torture and ill-treatment at the

Royal Academy of Police or the allegations of ongoing torture. Moreover, the Working

Group notes that the lack of a complaint to the Special Investigation Unit does not

demonstrate the absence of torture. The Government asserts that the Unit has opened an

investigation into the alleged torture, but has not provided any further information to support

this assertion, including, for example, the status of the investigation, any initial findings, and

information on any forensic medical examinations conducted in relation to Mr. Hasan. In

addition, the Working Group observes that the Government has not given a convincing

account of Mr. Hasan’s location and what he was doing between 2 and 5 January 2020,

having only suggested that this time was taken to complete paperwork at the Public

Prosecutor’s Office.

74.

The Working Group considers that the source has presented a credible prima facie

case that Mr. Hasan was subjected to physical and psychological torture and ill-treatment.

The alleged conduct appears to violate article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, article 7 of the Covenant, article 37 (a) and (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the

Child and articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture. The use of physical or

psychological force on a child is an extremely serious abuse of power, entirely lacking in

necessity and proportionality.23 The alleged torture and ill-treatment of the minor in the

present case must be subject to a thorough, independent investigation beyond the Special

Investigation Unit enquiries mentioned by the Government. Given the serious allegations of

torture and ill-treatment, the Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur

on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

75.

Moreover, the source alleges that on 3 January 2020, after being tortured at the Royal

Academy of Police, Mr. Hasan was taken to the Criminal Investigation Directorate for

interrogation, where he signed pre-prepared records without being allowed to read them. He

was subsequently taken to the Public Prosecutor’s Office where he signed pre-prepared

investigation records without being allowed to read them and without the presence of a

lawyer. In its response, the Government states that after Mr. Hasan was transferred from

Nabih Saleh Police Station, no records of his statements were taken, which appears to be an

assertion that no confessions were made by Mr. Hasan.

76.

The Working Group considers that the admission into evidence of a statement

obtained through torture renders the entire proceedings unfair. 24 The burden is on the

Government to prove that the statements of Mr. Hasan were given freely,25 but it has not done

so. Mr. Hasan did not have access to a lawyer when he allegedly signed the two pre-prepared

records. Confessions made in the absence of legal counsel are not admissible as evidence in

23 Opinion No. 3/2017, para. 30; and CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, paras. 26–27.

24 Opinion Nos. 59/2019, 52/2018, 34/2015 and 43/2012.

25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41; and CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3,

paras. 12–13 and 16–17.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

13

criminal proceedings.26 As a result, the rights of Mr. Hasan to be presumed innocent under

article 14 (2) of the Covenant and article 40 (2) (b) (i) of the Convention on the Rights of the

Child, and not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant and

article 40 (2) (b) (iv) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, were violated. The

intentional infliction of physical or psychological pressure to obtain a confession also

violated the obligations of Bahrain under articles 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against

Torture.27 Moreover, the prosecutor has violated its obligation to uphold human rights under

guideline 12 of the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors by allowing Mr. Hasan to sign pre-

prepared records that he had not been allowed to read. The Working Group refers the present

case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

77.

Finally, the Working Group reminds the Government of its obligation under articles

37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to try minors in specific courts for

that purpose and to use diversionary measures as the preferred manner of dealing with

children.28

78.

The Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial, namely

the lack of access to legal representation and the forced confession, are of such gravity as to

give the detention of Mr. Hasan an arbitrary character under category III.

Category V

79.

While the source did not make any allegations under category V, the Working Group

considers it appropriate to analyse Mr. Hasan’s detention under this category of its methods

of work.

80.

The source alleges that Mr. Hasan’s arrest and detention are based on his mother’s

political activity. Mr. Hasan’s mother, Ms. Yusuf, is a civil society activist who had shared

postings on social media calling for protests against the Bahrain Grand Prix Formula One

race being held on 16 April 2017. On 25 June 2018, Ms. Yusuf was sentenced to three years’

imprisonment for, among other things, inciting hatred for the Government and promoting

marches against the Government.29 The Working Group found a category II violation in

relation to Ms. Yusuf, as her detention resulted from the exercise of her right to freedom of

expression under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of

the Covenant. According to the source, Mr. Hasan’s arrest, detention and conviction amount

to a reprisal for his mother’s activism, as well as a reprisal for the refusal by Mr. Hasan and

his mother to work as secret informants for the National Security Agency.

81.

The Working Group is convinced that Mr. Hasan’s detention was the result of his

mother’s activism and her actions in speaking out against the Government. In reaching this

conclusion, the Working Group has taken into account the source’s allegation – which was

not addressed by the Government – that the authorities asked Mr. Hasan questions during his

interrogation relating to his mother’s political activity and whether his mother was still

writing to organizations or to the media. Moreover, the bringing of multiple charges of illegal

assembly and arson against Mr. Hasan since his mother’s arrest in 2017, and the fact that an

unsuccessful attempt was made to arrest him within two weeks of his mother’s release from

prison in August 2019, does not appear to be coincidental. Rather, it appears that Mr. Hasan’s

prosecution and imprisonment have been enacted in retribution against his mother for the

exercise of her right to freedom of opinion and expression.

82.

The Working Group considers that Mr. Hasan was detained on a discriminatory basis,

namely on the basis of birth and family ties, as his detention was a reprisal against his mother

for her activism. This appears to be a case of guilt by association.30 The Working Group

26 Opinions No. 59/2019 and No. 14/2019. See also E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e); A/HRC/45/16, para.

53; and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), paras. 58–60.

27 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 16 (expressing concern about the widespread use of forced confessions).

28 CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, paras. 43–44; Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24

(2019), paras. 15–18; and the Beijing Rules, rule 11.

29 Opinion No. 31/2019, para. 47.

30 Opinions No. 65/2019, para. 85; No. 83/2017, paras. 87–88; No. 33/2017, para. 98; and No. 1/2017,

para. 59. See also opinions Nos. 36/2013, 35/2013 and 34/2013.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

14

reaffirms that no one should be deprived of their liberty for the crimes, real or not, committed

by a family member by birth or marriage, in a free, democratic society.31 Mr. Hasan was

deprived of his liberty in a discriminatory manner, contrary to articles 2 and 7 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and article 2 of the

Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mr. Hasan’s detention is arbitrary under category V.

Concluding remarks

83.

According to the source, Mr. Hasan has been subjected to periods of solitary

confinement while in prison. The Government did not respond to this allegation. The

Working Group emphasizes that solitary confinement must not be used for a child.32 Solitary

confinement may amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment.33

84.

In addition, the source states that the authorities have restricted Mr. Hasan’s ability to

contact his family, including following his arrest, by not informing his family of his transfer

to other facilities and by interrogating him without a parent being present. In its response, the

Government notes the number of family visits that Mr. Hasan has received, but acknowledges

that the visits have been replaced with video and telephone calls during the COVID-19

pandemic. However, the Government does not address the alleged lack of contact of Mr.

Hasan with his family at earlier stages of the detention (e.g. during interrogations). The

Working Group considers that the authorities failed to meet the requirements of family

contact under article 37 (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, rules 43 (3) and 58

(1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the

Nelson Mandela Rules) and principles 15, 16 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the

Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.34

85.

The Working Group notes that Mr. Hasan has faced over 20 separate prosecutions,

and has been sentenced to 27 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. While the appropriate

sentence is a matter for domestic judicial bodies to determine, the Working Group is deeply

concerned that this is a disproportionate sentence, particularly given that Mr. Hasan was a

child at the time of commission of the alleged offences. The Working Group recalls the

requirement under article 14 (4) of the Covenant and article 40 (1) of the Convention on the

Rights of the Child that the age of the child and the desirability of promoting his or her

rehabilitation is to be taken into account in criminal proceedings.

86.

The Working Group is also concerned about the physical and psychological health of

Mr. Hasan, who remains in detention. He has health issues that require medical treatment.

The Working Group urges the Government to immediately and unconditionally release Mr.

Hasan and ensure that he receives medical care and can resume his education outside prison.

87.

This case is one of several cases brought before the Working Group in recent years

concerning the arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Bahrain.35 The Working Group notes that

many of the cases involving Bahrain follow a familiar pattern of arrest without a warrant,

pretrial detention with limited access to judicial review, denial of access to lawyers, forced

confession, enforced disappearance, torture and ill-treatment, and denial of medical care. The

Working Group recalls that, under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic

imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international

law may constitute crimes against humanity.36

88.

The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a country visit to

Bahrain. The Working Group visited Bahrain in October 2001 and considers that it is now an

31 Opinion No. 65/2019, para. 83.

32 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules),

rule 45 (2); and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 95 (h).

33 General Assembly resolution 68/156, para. 28. See also A/66/268, para. 71.

34 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 95 (e).

35 Opinions Nos. 87/2020, 41/2020, 5/2020, 73/2019, 59/2019, 31/2019, 79/2018, 51/2018, 13/2018,

55/2016, 35/2016, 41/2015, 23/2015, 37/2014, 34/2014, 27/2014, 25/2014, 22/2014, 1/2014 and

12/2013.

36 Opinion No. 47/2012, para. 22.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

15

appropriate time to conduct another visit. As a current member of the Human Rights Council,

it would be timely for the Government to extend an invitation to visit, and the Working Group

looks forward to a positive response to its previous request to visit.

Disposition

89.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Kameel Juma Mansoor Salman Hasan, being in

contravention of articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and (3), 9, 14, 16 and 26 of the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.

90.

The Working Group requests the Government of Bahrain to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of Mr. Hasan without delay and bring it into conformity with the

relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

91.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Hasan immediately and accord him an

enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international

law.37 In the current context of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the threat that it poses in

places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to

ensure the immediate release of Mr. Hasan.

92.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr.

Hasan, including the allegation that he was tortured, and to take appropriate measures against

those responsible for the violation of his rights.

93.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the

Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, for appropriate

action.

94.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure

95.

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 Mr. Hasan has been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Hasan;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Hasan’s

rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonise the laws and practices of Bahrain with its international obligations in line with the

present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

96.

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.

37 A/HRC/45/16, annex I.

A/HRC/WGAD/2021/2

16

97.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-

mentioned information within six months of the date of 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.

98.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has 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.38

[Adopted on 3 May 2021]

38 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.