Opinion; Subjects: SAUDI ARABIA, 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.22-15609(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-third session, 30 March to 8 April
2022
Opinion No. 30/2022 concerning Abdulrahman al-Sadhan (Saudi
Arabia)
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 10 December 2022 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Abdulrahman
al-Sadhan. The Government replied to the communication on 4 February 2022. 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,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
General Assembly
Distr.: General
29 September 2022
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
2
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, born in 1983, is a Saudi national. Prior to his arrest, he was
residing in Riyadh. He holds a university degree in business and used to work as an assistant
to the head of the Saudi Arabian Red Crescent Society in Riyadh.
Arrest and detention
5.
On 12 March 2018 at around 12 p.m., agents of the Presidency of State Security
dressed in civilian clothes reportedly arrested Mr. Al-Saehan at his workplace, the Red
Crescent Society in Riyadh. They confiscated his phone before taking him to an unknown
location. Reportedly, they did not show an arrest warrant, nor did they give any reason for
the arrest. Moreover, they did not inform his family nor allow him to inform his family of
where he was being taken or how his family could contact him.
6.
Mr. Al-Sadhan’s co-workers reportedly later confirmed to his family that the officials
identified themselves as belonging to the Presidency of State Security. The following day,
his neighbours saw a group of men dressed in State Security uniforms entering his place of
residence by force. As they were walking in and out of the property, neighbours saw men
seizing a laptop and other personal belongings. Mr. Al-Sadhan’s car was also confiscated.
7.
In April and May 2018, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s family searched for his name on a website,
the General Investigation Directorate’s (Mabahith) online prison database, which has since
been suspended. 2 His name did not appear in the register of inmates. The family also
contacted the Presidency of State Security on a number of occasions. After being informed
several times that there was no information on his fate or whereabouts, in mid-April 2018,
approximately a month after his arrest, a clerk finally confirmed that his name was listed in
their system and that he was being held for investigation. However, the clerk refused to give
any information as to the location of his place of detention and said that no one was allowed
to contact or visit him. The Presidency of State Security official told Mr. Al-Sadhan’s relative
that he could try to place a request for a telephone call or a visit, but that an in-person visit
would not be permitted. The official also stated that it could take years, not months.
8.
Mr. Al-Sadhan’s family made three separate requests to visit him, in April, August
and October 2018. On each occasion, the request was rejected. When they tried for the fourth
time, the request was once again rejected. His relative was then told that there was no point
of calling, and was advised to stop and wait to be contacted by the Presidency of State
Security.
9.
On 1 November 2018, the family filed a complaint with two Saudi human rights
agencies: the Saudi Human Rights Commission and the National Society for Human Rights.
A Human Rights Commission official acknowledged receipt of the request. However, neither
institution provided his family with information as to his fate and whereabouts.
10.
In October 2018, Mr. Al-Sadhan was allegedly seen in Dhahban prison in Jeddah by
co-detainees. Subsequently, his family tried to call Dhahban prison to enquire but was told
to speak with the Presidency of State Security directly. On 25 November 2018, the National
Society for Human Rights informed his family that he had been transferred to Al-Ha’ir prison
in Riyadh. The family has been unable to confirm whether he was held at Dhahban prison at
any point.
11.
On multiple accounts, first in April 2018, then in April and October 2019, Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s family received reports that he was allegedly subjected to severe acts of torture
while held in a secret location during his first year in detention, which includes, but is not
limited to: electric shocks, beatings that caused bone fractures, flogging, hanging from the
feet and suspension in stress-positions, sleep deprivation, threats of murder and beheading,
2 www.nafethah.gov.sa.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
3
insults, verbal humiliation and solitary confinement. Furthermore, he was allegedly forced to
sign documents while blindfolded. During the torture, his hand was reportedly broken and
his fingers smashed.
12.
In mid-February 2020, after almost two years of alleged enforced disappearance, he
was allowed to make a one-minute call to his family. He mentioned that he was being held
at Al-Ha’ir prison, information the Saudi authorities have failed to officially confirm to this
date.
13.
He was reportedly denied further contact with his family until 22 February 2021 when
he was allowed to make a second call to them. At this point, the authorities informed him
that he would be released soon and that at that point, there were no charges against him.
14.
The source contends that since his arrest, he has been held in solitary confinement and
denied any visits.
Trial before the Specialized Criminal Court
15.
On 2 March 2021, Mr. Al-Sadhan reportedly had a very quick call with his father to
inform him that his trial would begin the next day. On 3 March 2021, he was reportedly
presented in secret before the Specialized Criminal Court for a first hearing.
16.
Mr. Al-Sadhan reportedly had no legal representation, and his father was denied
access to the hearing. During the hearing, he was, for the first time, presented with a list of
the charges against him. Based on a compilation of tweets from satirical Twitter accounts
that he had allegedly been operating, and his forced confession, he was reportedly accused
by the Public Prosecutor of charges including funding terrorism; providing support and
sympathy for a terrorist entity (Da’esh) and advocating for it; using a website and electronic
devices to commit crimes stipulated in the Anti-Terrorism Law; and preparing, storing and
sending what would prejudice public order and religious values through tweets, under the
Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Cybercrime Laws.
17.
On 3 March 2021, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father made a request for temporary release;
however, the court never responded, and the request was ignored.
18.
On 11 March 2021, a second hearing took place, which was attended by Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s father and a court-appointed lawyer. The lawyer was only permitted a 40-minute
meeting with Mr. Al-Sadhan shortly before the hearing. Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father was able to
obtain a power of attorney to represent his son as his lawyer, but the court did not permit him
proper access. For only an hour, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father and lawyer were permitted to
examine a list of the evidence against him, which consisted of 200 pages of tweets from the
defendant’s alleged Twitter accounts and of a two-page document containing accusations and
confessions made by him under duress. He had allegedly been forced to sign and stamp the
aforementioned list of “evidence”. Neither Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father, nor his lawyer received
a copy of the evidence.
19.
Mr. Al-Sadhan was reportedly under constant guard surveillance and was never able
to talk confidentially with his father. As a result, the family is unsure to date if the Twitter
accounts actually belonged to him.
20.
During the hearing, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father shared and reviewed an oral argument
with his son that was prepared with an independent lawyer. He was going to present it to the
judge; however, the court-appointed lawyer reportedly told him to wait by claiming that he
wanted to review it and present it in the next hearing instead. A third hearing was scheduled
for 17 March 2021, during which Mr. Al-Sadhan would be allowed to present his defence.
21.
After the second hearing, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father reported that his son’s health
appeared to be poor and that he seemed to have trouble focusing.
22.
On 17 March 2021, a third hearing took place, during which Mr. Al-Sadhan’s lawyer
presented a response to the charges brought against him, arguing that the accusations were
broad, vague and invalid, as they were not relying on any actual evidence, and that they
should therefore be dropped.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
4
23.
The lawyer also argued that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s alleged tweets dated from before the
entry into force of the Anti-Terrorism Law on the basis of which he was charged. Moreover,
he established that the tweets were satirical and represented individual opinions of the
complainant and that he maintained no links to any terrorist organization in this regard. The
Public Prosecution reportedly appeared to make attempts to incentivize Mr. Al-Sadhan to
confess what they wanted to hear him say by promising that he would be released after the
trial.
24.
On 22 March 2021, a fourth hearing took place. Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father was reportedly
not informed of the hearing, while his lawyer was informed about it at the last minute. When
the lawyer arrived, the hearing had already been concluded, thus leaving Mr. Al-Sadhan
without any legal representation. During the hearing, the Public Prosecution indicated that
they intended to provide evidence contrary to the defence plea.
25.
A fifth hearing took place on 25 March 2021. Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father was instructed
to wait outside the courtroom for the hearing to begin, only to learn shortly thereafter from
the lawyer that it had already taken place. According to the lawyer, the prosecutor claimed
that Mr. Al-Sadhan had not asked for a lawyer; that he had received a visit from the Saudi
Human Rights Commission in Ulaysha prison; and that he had also received a visit from a
second named individual for two minutes, who had confirmed that he was doing fine. The
family reportedly denied these claims as they believe he was never held in Ulaysha prison.
On 1 April 2021, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s lawyer submitted a response to the judge to refute the
Public Prosecution’s claims.
26.
In addition, Mr. Al-Sadhan told his father that he was pre-diabetic and suffering from
high triglyceride levels, which he was given daily pills to manage. Mr Al-Sadhan noted that
these were health conditions that he did not suffer from prior to his arrest and that were due
to the poor quality of food in prison, his prolonged stay in solitary confinement and the stress
and torture he endured. His family reportedly believes that he currently does not receive
adequate medical care.
27.
On 5 April 2021, the Specialized Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Al-Sadhan to 20 years
in prison, followed by a travel ban of another 20 years. Both his father and lawyer were
reportedly hindered from attending the hearing on time and were only allowed to enter the
court room when the decision had already been rendered. In fact, that day, both men
reportedly arrived on time and were waiting in court for 20 minutes before they were told to
leave and come back in a couple of hours. They were told that the judge needed to rewrite
the decision upon request of the Public Prosecutors. When they came back two hours later,
they reportedly saw four men attending the hearing on the side of the Public Prosecution,
whom they believed to be State Security officials.
28.
The 20-year prison sentence is reportedly based on the maximum penalties stipulated
in articles 30, 34, 43, and 47 of the Anti-Terrorism Law and in article 6 (1) of the Anti-
Cybercrime Law. The travel ban of 20 years was pronounced according to article 53 (1) of
the Anti-Terrorism Law. The judgment also included the confiscation of computers and Mr.
Al-Sadhan’s hard disk, which had been “used in the crime”; and the closure of his Twitter
accounts, according to article 58 of the Anti-Terrorism Law and article 13 of Anti-
Cybercrime Law. Mr. Al-Sadhan was given 30 days to appeal the decision.
29.
On 4 May 2021, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father, as his legal representative, submitted the
appeal, which was prepared by the lawyer and reviewed by Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father.
30.
On 4 August 2021, the first hearing took place before the appeal court, during which
Mr. Al-Sadhan, together with his father and lawyer, were allowed to discuss the appeal
submitted in May. In particular, they argued that there was a lack of evidence supporting the
sentence, and that his confessions were obtained through torture and after years of
incommunicado detention and solitary confinement. Moreover, they asked for a psychiatric
evaluation of his psychological health, which had become severely critical due to the many
years of imprisonment. However, the judges reportedly did not take such arguments into
consideration and did not order any investigation into the acts of torture.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
5
31.
Between the first instance’s sentence and the appeal’s first hearing, i.e., for a period
of four months, Mr. Al-Sadhan was allegedly held incommunicado. He was denied any
contact with his family and lawyer and was only able to meet with them during the hearings.
32.
On 13 September 2021, the second hearing, which was attended by Mr. Al-Sadhan’s
lawyer but not by Mr. Al-Sadhan, was postponed by the judges because Mr. Al-Sadhan had
submitted an additional plea. After a first rejection and only several hours later, the lawyer
was finally allowed to briefly read Mr. Al-Sadhan’s oral argument. In it, Mr. Al-Sadhan
stated that the Saudi judiciary system was de facto controlled by the General Investigation
Directorate under the authority of the Presidency of State Security; that it was thus not
independent and impartial; and that the charges against him were built on invalid legal
grounds, violating Saudi laws and the Constitution. However, his plea was only officially
shared the day after the appeal decision was issued.
33.
On 5 October 2021, the final hearing took place, during which the arguments raised
by the defence were not even considered by the judges. The appeal court of the Specialized
Criminal Court upheld the first instance’s ruling, thus confirming the sentence. The source
notes that the lawyer was present. The following day, the court shared the ruling with the
lawyer. The names of the judges and the Public Prosecutor were reportedly not listed, in
violation of article 181 (2) of the Criminal Procedural Law.
34.
Since the appeal sentence, Mr. Al-Sadhan has allegedly been held incommunicado.
Although his family believes he is currently held in solitary confinement in Al Ha’ir prison,
he could have been transferred to another location.
35.
On 2 November 2021, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father appealed the second instance’s ruling
before the Saudi Supreme Court. He argued that the sentence was built on invalid procedures,
and that it violated several Saudi laws. He also shared details of the acts of torture that Mr.
Al-Sadhan was allegedly subjected to and restated some of the points raised during the first
and second instances. At the time of the source’s submission, the court proceeding was still
pending.
Analysis of violations
36.
In the light of the above, the source submits that the detention of Mr. Al-Sadhan is
arbitrary according to categories I, II, III and V.
Response from the Government
37.
On 10 December 2021, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the
Government under its regular communication procedure, requesting the Government to
provide detailed information by 4 February 2022 about Mr. Al-Sadhan and to clarify the legal
provisions justifying his continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations
of Saudi Arabia under international human rights law.
38.
On 4 February 2022, the Government submitted its reply arguing that the allegations
and claims made in the communication were untrue, being based on unfounded and
uncorroborated information from the source, noting that it has taken steps to investigate the
allegations and to clarify all relevant facts, in line with its policy of cooperation with
international human rights procedures.
39.
The Government rebuts the source’s claim that these allegations amount to arbitrary
deprivation of liberty under categories I, II, III and V because it is devoid of evidence and
contrary to reality. Moreover, information concerning Mr. Al-Sadhan was provided earlier,
in the reply to joint communication SAU 6/2021, dated 20 May 2021, which covered most
of the claims and allegations contained in the present communication, demonstrating that the
allegations made are untrue.3
40.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan was arrested pursuant to an arrest
warrant issued by the competent authority under article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, then
3 Reply of Saudi Arabia is contained in document No. 21-09890, HRC/NONE/2021/SP/58, dated 15
July 2021. Available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=36432.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
6
detained under articles 2 and 19 of the Act, and accused of having committed the following
terrorist offences:
(a)
Financing terrorism by collecting, holding, providing and transferring money
to a terrorist entity (article 47 of the Anti-Terrorism Act);
(b)
Supporting, sympathizing with and promoting a terrorist entity (Da’esh)
(article 34 of the Act);
(c)
Using the Internet and electronic programmes and devices to commit offences
envisaged in the Act (article 43 of the Act);
(d)
Perpetrating actions criminalized and punished under article 30 of the Act;
(e)
Perpetrating actions criminalized and punished under article 6 (1) of the
Cybercrime Act.
41.
He was informed of the reason for his arrest, in accordance with article 36 (1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Having questioned him, the investigating authority, the Public
Prosecution Service, was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to level charges and
referred the case file to the competent court.
42.
The Government denies the source’s claim that he was subjected to enforced
disappearance and detained incommunicado during which time he was not allowed to
communicate with his family and lawyer. The Government submits that he was held in the
Al-Ha’ir prison in Riyadh, a well-known and designated place of detention. He was not
deprived of his right to seek legal assistance, counsel and protection, and he was regularly
able to exercise his right to receive visits and make calls. The Government further notes that
Saudi Arabia has already replied to a previous communication from the Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concerning the alleged enforced disappearance of
this individual, and that at the 124th session of the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances, held in May 2021, the Working Group considered that the case
had been clarified.
43.
The Government submits that there are no secret detention centres in Saudi Arabia,
all prisons and places of detention being unconcealed and well-known. In addition, all
detention centres and prisons are subject to judicial, administrative, health and social
inspections.
44.
The right to contest the legality of an arrest or detention is a general principle
enshrined in article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Government submits that
the Public Prosecution Service is an independent body that is part of the judiciary, and that
no one has the right to interfere in its operation. Domestic law protects the rights of accused
persons from the moment of arrest to the moment of release, and any accused person has the
right to bring a case before the courts for them to decide on the legality of his or her detention.
These provisions are consistent with articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
45.
The sentence was handed down against Mr. Al-Sadhan on the basis of evidence that
he had committed terror offences publishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The sentence
includes a clear and detailed description of the conviction based on articles 30, 34, 43 and 47
of the Act. Saudi laws are formulated with sufficient clarity and accuracy, and anyone can
understand them and regulate their behaviour accordingly. The law contains no vaguely or
broadly worded provisions. Moreover, laws are publicly available and subject to constant
review, updating and improvement in line with changes and developments at the local and
international levels.
46.
Under Saudi law, detention, imprisonment and restriction of individual freedom of
movement are prohibited except where permitted by law, in accordance with article 36 of the
Basic Law of Governance, which stipulates that all Saudi citizens and all persons residing in
its territory shall be guaranteed security.
47.
The Government refutes the source’s claim that the facts that triggered Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s conviction predated the entry into force of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which would
violate the principle of nullum crimen sine lege certa. It argues that the source is attempting
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
7
to justify the terrorist offences committed by the individual in question. The Government
submits that the nullum crimen sine lege certa principle is one of the fundamental tenets of
Saudi law and refers to article 38 of the Basic Law of Governance and article 3 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. At the time of his arrest, the Anti-Terrorism Act had already been in
force for a number of months. The Government submits that he suffered no violation under
category I.
48.
Mr. Al-Sadhan was arrested on charges of having committed crimes punishable under
the aforementioned Acts, and the arrest had no connection with the exercise of the right to
freedom of expression. No one is detained for exercising their rights and freedoms, and Saudi
law protects freedom of opinion and expression, the exercise of which is guaranteed for all
persons unless deemed to breach or exceed the bounds of public order or the norms applicable
to society, its members or its precepts. Such a restriction is consistent with the relevant
international legal standards.
49.
On the source’s claim that the sentence cannot be considered commensurate with the
nature of the alleged facts, the Government asserts that those crimes are punishable under the
aforementioned Acts. The sentence was handed down by the court acting under its
independent authority, in which no other body may interfere. Thus, the sentence is
commensurate with the nature of the crimes for which he was convicted. The Government
thus submits that he suffered no violation under category II.
50.
All proceedings against Mr. Al-Sadhan were based on current domestic laws, which
are consistent with international standards and applicable human rights treaties. He was
detained during the course of the investigation and informed of the reasons for his arrest and
of the charges against him. Upon completion of the interrogation, the Public Prosecution
Service decided that there was sufficient evidence to charge him. It referred his case file to
the competent court, and he was summoned to appear before it.
51.
The court issued its judgment only after it had heard statements from all the parties,
after the submission of all oral and written defence pleas, after the parties had confirmed that
they did not wish to make any additions thereto, and after the evidence and the evidence-
collection records had been examined.
52.
Mr. Al-Sadhan was able to exercise his right to a defence and to legal assistance and
was made aware that he had the right to engage the services of a lawyer or defence
representative to plead on his behalf, pursuant to articles 4 (1) and 139 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. He requested a delay to present his response and asked that a lawyer be
appointed to defend him. His request was granted, and the court appointed a lawyer on his
behalf at State expense. The lawyer was given the facilities and time necessary to provide
legal assistance to the individual in accordance with relevant provisions.
53.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s father and Human Rights Commission
representatives attended the entire trial. Once the first instance judgment had been handed
down, the individual was granted the right to enter a challenge by filing a memorandum of
appeal within 30 days of receiving a copy of the judgment. The challenge was filed, but the
judges of the court of first instance upheld the original judgment. The case file was then
referred to the Court of Appeal. A number of hearings were held at the Court, which were
attended by the public prosecutor, the defendant, his father, his lawyer and Human Rights
Commission representatives. The Court examined the case file and heard the statements of
all the parties involved. The Court of Appeal ruled to uphold the original sentence of 20
years’ imprisonment, to begin from the date of his arrest, and a travel ban for an equivalent
period. The sentence was handed down after he was convicted of having committed the
aforementioned terrorist offences. The convicted party, who can apply for cassation under
article 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is currently serving his sentence in the Al-
Ha’ir prison in Riyadh.
54.
In accordance with the law, he was able to exercise his right to appear before the court
in person and to attend all the trial hearings, both before the court of first instance and the
Court of Appeal. All trial hearings were public, in accordance with relevant provisions of the
Code of Sharia Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
8
55.
Mr. Al-Sadhan’s case was examined by the legally competent court, the Specialized
Criminal Court, in a fair and public trial. The Specialized Criminal Court was established by
decree of the Supreme Judicial Council. The Specialized Criminal Court – the creation of
which has strengthened the administration of justice – is part of the country’s ordinary system
of justice, It follows the same judicial procedures as those applied in other criminal courts.
Judges in Saudi Arabia are appointed by decree of the Supreme Judicial Council, endorsed
by royal order.
56.
Domestic law grants all accused persons the right to a fair and public trial before an
independent court. The Saudi judiciary derives its authority and principles from Islamic
sharia, which enshrines the principle of justice as the basis of governance and the guarantee
of judicial independence.
57.
The Government denies allegations that Mr. Al-Sadhan suffered torture and was held
in solitary confinement. He was regularly able to exercise his right to receive visits and make
calls and was treated well and in a manner that maintained his dignity and preserved all his
rights. Domestic law prohibits any form of physical or mental abuse, torture or degrading
treatment, and the interrogation of accused persons has to be conducted in a manner that does
not influence their will to make statements. They must not be required to take an oath or be
subjected to coercive measures. Torture is criminalized and penalized under Saudi law. All
prisons and detention facilities are supervised and inspected, and steps are taken in the event
of any violation. Moreover, members of the Public Prosecution Service supervise the
professional conduct of law enforcement officers pursuant to article 25 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
58.
Mr. Al-Sadhan had a fair trial before the competent court and there is no truth to
allegations concerning the use of evidence extracted under torture. Of his own free will, he
confessed to the charges against him before the investigating authorities and then
acknowledged that confession before the courts. When acknowledging the confession before
the court, he reportedly did not indicate that he had suffered coercion. In making a judgment,
the judge does not rely on confessions but on factual and presumptive evidence, arrest and
search reports, witness testimonies, and cross-examinations and statements heard during the
trial proceedings. Measures taken by the judge in that context may comprise hearing
witnesses; visiting and inspecting the scene of the offence; and seeking the assistance of
experts, including forensic medical examiners. The trial, in fact, serves as the final
investigation and therefore necessitates safeguards and protection for the parties involved.
59.
Mr. Al-Sadhan receives necessary medical care like any other detained person or
prisoner. His state of health is good and he is not suffering from any illnesses. Prisoners and
detainees undergo a medical examination immediately after they are admitted to a general
prison and periodic medical tests thereafter. The Government adds that it was one of the first
countries to take measures to confront the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in
prisons and detention centres in accordance with the protocols and guidelines adopted by the
Ministry of Health.
60.
The information provided shows that his conditions of detention are consistent with
the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules) and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment. Since the source’s claims and allegations have been thus
refuted, it should be clear that the individual concerned suffered no violation under category
III.
61.
The Government reiterates that he was arrested on charges of having committed acts
that are criminalized and punished under the Anti-Terrorism Act (see para. 40 above). No
one is detained for exercising their rights and freedoms, and all citizens and residents, men
and women, enjoy their rights and exercise their freedoms without discrimination, in
accordance with national law.
62.
All citizens and residents are treated equally before the law, pursuant to article 47 of
the Basic Law of Governance. All Saudi citizens are Muslims and enjoy their rights on an
equal footing. Discrimination is, in fact, criminalized and punishable under article 8, and the
Government also refers to articles 11, 12 and 26 of the Basic Law of Governance. Saudi
Arabia is committed to the human rights treaties to which it is a party, which are considered
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
9
to be part of domestic law. Since the source’s claims and allegations have been thus refuted,
it should be clear that the individual concerned suffered no violation under category V. Based
on the foregoing, the Government refutes the conclusion reached by the source that Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s detention amounts to arbitrary deprivation of liberty under categories I, II, III and
V.
63.
Lastly, the Government reminds the Working Group of the Code of Conduct for
Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council, adopted by the Council
in its resolution 5/2 on 18 June 2007, and in particular their obligations under articles 6 (a)–
(c), 9 (a) and (d)–(e), 12 (a)–(b) and 13 (a)–(b).
Further comments from the source
64.
On 25 February 2022, the source provided further comments in which it maintained
its original submissions that Mr. Al-Sadhan was being arbitrarily detained under categories
I, II, and III and V.
Discussion
65.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their timely
submissions.
66.
In determining whether Mr. Al-Sadhan’s detention is arbitrary, the Working Group
has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If
the source has presented a prima facie case for breach of the international law constituting
arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if
it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures
have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.4
i.
Category I
67.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan was arrested without a warrant, and notes that
the circumstances of his arrest do not give any cause for arrest in flagrante delicto, which
might have obviated the need for an arrest warrant. The Government argues that he was
arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority under article 5 of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, then detained under articles 2 and 19 of the Act, being accused of having
committed a number of terrorist offences.
68.
The source also submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan was not promptly informed of the reasons
for his arrest, which were communicated to him, together with the charges, during the first
trial hearing, on 3 March 2021, i.e., nearly three years after his arrest. The Government states
that he was informed of the reason for his arrest in accordance with article 36 (1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, but it does not specify when this notification took place or provide
other relevant information pertinent to such notification.
69.
In order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient simply for
there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply
it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant. 5 The international law on
deprivation of liberty includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant, which is
procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person.
70.
The Working Group observes that the Government does not specifically address the
source’s detailed submissions as to how the arrest of Mr. Al-Sadhan was executed. The
Government has not clarified if the arrest warrant was specifically served upon Mr. Al-
Sadhan at the time of his arrest. It also does not provide any time frame in relation to the
arrest, the issuance of the arrest warrant or the issuance of the charges by the Public
Prosecution. The Working Group has found in a series of recent cases relating to Saudi Arabia
that an arrest warrant was not presented at the time of the arrest, further bolstering the
4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
5 See e.g. opinions No. 10/2018, paras. 45–46; No. 33/2019, para. 48; and No. 46/2019, para. 51.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
10
credibility of the source’s claims.6 Considering the submissions of both parties, the Working
Group finds that no arrest warrant was presented at the time of Mr. Al-Sadhan’s arrest; that
he was not provided with the reasons for his arrest; and that he was not promptly informed
of the charges against him. For these reasons, the Working Group finds that his arrest violates
articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2, 4 and 10 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
71.
The source asserts that for the most part of nearly four years of detention, Mr. Al-
Sadhan was subjected to enforced disappearance and that he was held in solitary confinement
throughout his entire detention. Moreover, he is reportedly currently held incommunicado
and has been detained under these conditions for nearly two and a half years, from 12 March
2018 to 11 February 2020, from 5 April 2021 to 4 August 2021, and from 5 October 2021
onwards. During these periods, he was not allowed to communicate with his family and
lawyer. Moreover, although Mr. Al-Sadhan was allowed to have a brief telephone call with
his family in mid-February 2020, he was denied further contact until 22 February 2021.
Further contact was temporarily allowed during the court proceedings. The source submits
that Mr. Al-Sadhan is still being held incommunicado and that his family, who have no access
to him, do not know where he is detained. The Government denies these allegations and
submits that he has not been denied his right to seek legal advice and protection and enjoys
his right to visit and communicate regularly, but it does not substantiate this claim with
additional information.
72.
Moreover, as the Working Group has consistently argued, holding persons
incommunicado violates their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a
court.7 The Working Group notes that Mr. Al-Sadhan was not brought promptly before a
judge or afforded the right to take proceedings before a court so that it could decide without
delay on the lawfulness of his detention. The Working Group observes that while the
Government provides a list of legal provisions, it does not dispute that he was first brought
before a judicial authority on 3 March 2021, nearly three years after his arrest.
73.
The Working Group considers that judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental
safeguard of personal liberty,8 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.
Given that Mr. Al-Sadhan was not able to challenge the legality of his detention, his rights
under articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were violated.
74.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan was held in the Al-Ha’ir prison in
Riyadh, a well-known and designated place of detention. The Working Group observes that
the Government has not specified when he was admitted into this prison. While the
Government argues that there are no secret or unknown places of detention in Saudi Arabia,
the Working Group recalls that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances has stated that in Saudi Arabia, there are clear trends of occurrence of both
short- and long-term enforced disappearances, in particular against manifestations of free
speech and peaceful assembly.9 Moreover, the Working Group takes note of the source’s
unrebutted submission that it was the National Society for Human Rights that informed Mr.
Al-Sadhan’s family of his whereabouts on 25 November 2018 after he was taken by the
Presidency of State Security on 12 March 2018. In accordance with paragraph 16 of its
methods of work, the Working Group also notes that the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances decided to reopen Mr. Al-Sadhan’s case on 24 November 2021,
as he has allegedly been held incommunicado since his final appeal hearing on 5 October
2021 (see para. 42 above).
75.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Working Group notes that it would appear that Mr.
Al-Sadhan has also been forcibly disappeared. Indeed, such deprivation of liberty, entailing
6 Opinions No. 22/2019, No. 26/2019, No. 56/2019, No. 71/2019, No. 33/2020, No. 86/2020,
No. 92/2020, No. 34/2021, No. 59/2021 and No. 72/2021.
7 See opinions No. 28/2016, No. 79/2017, No. 93/2017, No. 33/2020 and No. 86/2020.
8 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
9 Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, “General allegation: Saudi Arabia”,
121st session, 11–15 May 2020, paras. 33–34 and 36, available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disappearances/Allegations/121-SaudiArabia.pdf.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
11
a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of victims or to acknowledge their detention,
lacks any valid legal basis and is inherently arbitrary as it places victims outside the
protection of the law. The Working Group recalls that enforced disappearance constitutes a
particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention, in violation of article 6 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.10 It also recalls that no jurisdiction should allow for individuals
to be deprived of their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods, held outside the
reach of the law, without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas
corpus.11
76.
Noting all of the above, the Working Group therefore considers that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s
arrest and detention violate articles 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
77.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Al-Sadhan was prosecuted and sentenced on the
basis of several articles contained in the 2017 Anti-Terrorism Law and the 2007 Anti-
Cybercrime Law. The source submits that the provisions used to prosecute him lack legal
certainty. The Government denies this, stating that articles 30, 34, 43 and 47 of the Anti-
Terrorism Law are formulated with precision and any person can understand them and
regulate their behaviour within their framework and provisions.
78.
The Government does not specifically comment on the lack of clarity of the Anti-
Cybercrime Law. The source, on the other hand, notes that article 1 (8) of that Law defines
“cybercrime” in overly broad terms and that article 6 (1) of the Law is equally vague.
79.
The source also notes that article 1 of the Anti-Terrorism Law contains a broad and
vague definition of a terrorist crime, and that such provisions allow for the criminalization of
peaceful expression, enable arbitrary interpretation and make it difficult for Saudi citizens to
determine how to act in order to comply with the law.
80.
As the Working Group has stated, vaguely and broadly worded provisions, such as
the Anti-Cyber Crime Law and the 2017 Anti-Terrorism Law, which cannot qualify as lex
certa, violate the due process of law undergirded by the principle of legality in article 11 (2)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.12 The Working Group reiterates this finding
in relation to Mr. Al-Sadhan. The Working Group recalls that two former special rapporteurs
on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism have expressed their concerns about the definition of “terrorist crime”, as contained
in article 1 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as it does not restrict the acts it criminalizes to violent
acts.13 Similar concerns were raised by the Committee against Torture.14
81.
During the first instance court proceedings, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s lawyer reportedly argued
that the alleged facts that triggered the accusations and convictions had taken place before
the entry into force of the Anti-Terrorism Law. The source refers to the principle of nullum
crimen sine lege certa, which ensures that no defendant may be punished arbitrarily or
retroactively by the State, thus meaning that a person cannot be convicted under a penal law
that is passed retroactively to criminalize a previous act or omission.15 The Government
argues that this principle is a fundamental tenet of Saudi law and that the Anti-Terrorism Law
was in force for a number of months before Mr. Al-Sadhan’s arrest.
82.
The Working Group recalls that the nullum crimen sine lege certa principle provides
that no one should be convicted under a penal law that was not yet in force at the moment of
the commission of the acts or omissions. Accordingly, an act is only punishable by law if
when committed, it was the object of a valid, sufficiently precise, written criminal law to
which a sufficiently certain sanction was attached.16
10 See opinions No. 56/2019, No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 13/2020, No. 33/2020 and
No. 72/2021. See also the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
11 A/HRC/16/47 and A/HRC/16/47/Corr.1, para. 54.
12 Opinion No. 71/2019, para. 73.
13 See communication SAU 12/2020, p. 6; and A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 16.
14 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 16.
15 Opinion No. 20/2017, para. 49.
16 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
12
83.
Therefore, the fact that the Anti-Terrorism Law was already in force when Mr. Al-
Sadhan was arrested as put forward by the Government does not resolve the violation of this
principle. The Working Group finds a violation of article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
84.
Noting all of the above, the Working Group therefore considers that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s
arrest and detention lack a legal basis and are arbitrary under category I.
ii.
Category II
85.
The source also submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s detention is arbitrary because it directly
derives from the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. Indeed, Mr. Al-Sadhan was
convicted on charges that have a direct connection to him allegedly operating two satirical
Twitter accounts.
86.
The Government states that the reasons for his detention are charges of committing
terrorist crimes punishable according to the Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Cybercrime Laws and
are not related to his exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It does not specifically
rebut the source’s submissions but cites Saudi legal provisions, without clarifying their
application.
87.
The source notes that the connection between the conviction and Mr. Al-Sadhan’s
right to freedom of expression is even clearer considering the evidence presented by the Saudi
Public Prosecution during court hearings. During the second hearing, the defence was
informed that the prosecution relied on 200 pages of tweets from Mr. Al-Sadhan’s Twitter
accounts, which the defence was only allowed to briefly examine, without being permitted
to make copies.
88.
The source notes that although the restrictions imposed on Mr. Al-Sadhan are
provided by law, it has already discussed above the lack of legal clarity of the provisions
applied in the present case. It adds that even if it were assumed that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s arrest,
detention and sentencing were grounded in Saudi law, and that these measures pursued a
legitimate aim such as protecting public order, it cannot be said that the restrictions were
necessary and proportionate. The source also adds that the prosecution has failed to produce
convincing evidence proving that the dissemination of Mr. Al-Sadhan’s satirical views via
Twitter might compromise national security or public order. Finally, the source notes that the
excessively long period of imprisonment (20 years) and travel ban (20 years) imposed on Mr.
Al-Sadhan cannot be reasonably considered as a proportionate measure to protect public
order.17
89.
The Working Group has considered a number of cases concerning deprivation of
liberty by the Government under the provisions of the Anti-Cybercrime Law. 18 The
individuals in these prior cases, as with Mr. Al-Sadhan, were deprived of their liberty for
online comments expressing their political views. For this reason, the Working Group has in
the past found prosecution and imprisonment under the Anti-Cybercrime Law, as well as the
Anti-Terrorism law, to be arbitrary when they result from the legitimate exercise of
fundamental human rights.19
90.
The Working Group recalls that holding and expressing opinions, including those that
are not in accordance with official government policy, are protected by article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group is of the view that Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s running of two satirical Twitter accounts falls within the boundaries of the right to
expression of opinion, which is protected by article 19. Moreover, article 29 (2) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the only legitimate limitations to the
exercise of that right must be for the purposes of securing due recognition and respect for the
rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order
and the general welfare in a democratic society.20
17 E/CN.4/2006/7, para. 43.
18 See, for example, opinions No. 10/2018 and No. 71/2019.
19 Opinions No. 63/2017, paras. 54–63; and No. 71/2019, para. 82.
20 See opinions No. 48/2016 and No. 6/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
13
91.
According to the Working Group’s established practice, restrictions placed on
freedom of expression by way of deprivation of liberty can only be justified when it is shown
that the deprivation of liberty has a legal basis in national law, does not violate international
law and is necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others, or for the
protection of national security, public order, public health or morals, and is proportionate to
the pursued legitimate aims.21 These criteria do not appear to have been met in the present
case.
92.
For these reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr.
Al-Sadhan is arbitrary, as it resulted from his exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed
under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His deprivation of liberty
therefore falls within category II. The Working Group refers the case to the Special
Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, for appropriate action.
iii.
Category III
93.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al-Sadhan is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken place.
However, the trial did take place and Mr. Al-Sadhan was sentenced to 20 years of
imprisonment and 20 years of travel ban. At the time of the source’s submission, court
proceedings before the Saudi Supreme Court were pending. The source argues that Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s right to fair trial has been violated, while the Government denies this.
94.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadhan was brought to trial on 3 March 2021, i.e.,
over three years after his arrest. Although cases involving crimes defined as terrorism have
been accepted as being more difficult and complex than routine criminal cases, the one
involving Mr. Al-Sadhan should not be considered as such. Firstly, as argued under category
II, the classification of the alleged facts as terrorist acts has been instrumental in order to
punish Mr. Al-Sadhan for his criticism of the Government. Secondly, the evidence gathered
during the three-year detention period reportedly merely consisted in coerced confessions
and 200 pages of tweets. No witnesses were summoned to appear or testify. According to the
source, this demonstrates that no thorough investigation was carried out. The source also
notes that no delay can be attributable to the accused, Mr. Al-Sadhan, who conversely has
been held incommunicado and in solitary confinement for the whole period. He has allegedly
been subjected to extensive and severe acts of torture, aimed at extracting self-incriminating
confessions. The source adds that given the political nature of the charges and the absence of
proper material evidence, the three-year period before the beginning of the trial is
unreasonable.
95.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan was brought to trial without delay and
cites to relevant legislation but does not explain its application in this case to address the
source’s specific claims.
96.
In the Working Group’s view, Mr. Al-Sadhan’s pretrial detention for over three years
without an individualized judicial determination has undermined the presumption of
innocence guaranteed under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
principle 36 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment. The delay in this case, during which time Mr. Al-Sadhan
remained deprived of his liberty, is unjustified and in violation of the right to be tried without
undue delay, guaranteed under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and principle 38 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.22
97.
Considering these arguments, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s
right to be tried without undue delay under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights was violated.
98.
The source recalls that Mr. Al-Sadhan was denied access to legal counsel after his
arrest and during interrogation and was only allowed to meet with his lawyer, who was
21 E/CN.4/2006/7, para. 43. See also opinions No. 21/2017, para. 40; and No. 63/2017, para. 55.
22 See e.g. opinion No. 33/2020, para. 88.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
14
appointed by the court and not chosen by him, during the trial’s second hearing. He was also
reportedly denied access to legal counsel on several occasions during the trial. The
Government denies this allegation submitting that he was able to exercise his right to a
defence and to legal assistance, and that he was appointed a lawyer to defend him at State
expense. The lawyer was reportedly given the facilities and time necessary to provide legal
assistance in accordance with relevant provisions. The Government does not further
substantiate its submissions.
99.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadhan was not given adequate time and facilities to
prepare his defence. Besides not being promptly informed of the charges, he did not receive
adequate legal assistance and did not properly access the evidence and materials retrieved,
which served as the basis for the accusation. The source also submits that the principle of
equality of arms, the essential guarantee of the accused’s right to defend himself, has not
been ensured to Mr. Al-Sadhan.
100.
Having examined the submissions from both parties, the Working Group is convinced
by the detailed submissions of the source. The Working Group concludes that these violations
contravene article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; principles 15 to 19
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment; principle 9 of the 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; and rule 61 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
101.
On the allegation that on several occasions during the trial, Mr. Al-Sadhan and his
lawyer were denied access to the hearings without any valid reasons, the Government
responds only in general terms. Taking into account these two versions of events, the
Working Group is persuaded by the source’s submissions and finds violations of principle
11 and guideline 10 of the 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, and recalls that this practice is consistent with the findings of the former Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism during his 2017 country visit.23
102.
While article 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Law authorizes the Specialized Criminal Court
to hear secret witnesses and expert testimonies without providing the defence with any
opportunity to cross-examine, the Working Group observes that there is a strict obligation to
respect the right to have witnesses admitted that are relevant for the defence and to be given
a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against the defence at some stage
of the proceedings. The refusal to allow any witnesses on behalf of the defence bears the
hallmarks of a serious denial of equality of arms in the proceedings.24 The Working Group
recalls that the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism stated that this provision violated the
fundamental rights of defence and could only be consistent with the right to a fair trial if
counterbalanced by effective safeguards.25
103.
The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers, for appropriate action.
104.
The source alleges that Mr. Al-Sadhan has been subjected to severe acts of torture and
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that has severely affected his physical and
psychological well-being. The Government denies this allegation. The source further submits
that the security forces tortured him to coerce him into signing self-incriminating statements.
Moreover, his confessions were reportedly not excluded from the court proceedings despite
the fact that, during the appeal, he informed the judicial authorities that they were extracted
under torture. The Government denies this allegation stating that his confessions were
provided of his own free will.
23 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 31.
24 Opinion No. 19/2022, para. 66.
25 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 46.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
15
105.
The Working Group notes with concern the source’s submission, refuted by the
Government, that Mr. Al-Sadhan has been denied access to adequate medical care although
he is suffering from medical issues that he did not have prior to his imprisonment. Moreover,
during the appeal, the court reportedly rejected his lawyer’s request for a psychiatric
examination of his client.26 The Working Group recalls that the denial of medical care can
constitute a form of torture.27
106.
In light of the lack of legal assistance during the interrogations and the many violations
to his right to a fair trial, the Working Group finds to be untenable the Government’s position
that Mr. Al-Sadhan confessed willingly. Moreover, he was subjected to prolonged
incommunicado detention (see paras. 30, 71–72 and 74) that is conducive to torture and ill-
treatment and can itself constitute such treatment.28 Taken together, these factors lead to the
conclusion that the source has established credible allegations of torture in violation of article
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group considers that
confessions made in the absence of legal counsel are inadmissible as evidence in criminal
proceedings.29 The use of a confession extracted through ill-treatment also constitutes a
violation of principle 21 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment30 and a violation of article 15 of the Convention
against Torture. The Working Group refers this case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.
107.
The Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial noted above
are of such gravity as to give the detention of Mr. Al-Sadhan an arbitrary character under
category III.
iv.
Category V
108.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Sadhan’s arrest, prosecution and treatment are the
direct result of his political opinions, which led to his unequal treatment before the law. The
Government claims that his detention is not related to political opinions and that no one is
detained in the country for exercising rights and freedoms.
109.
The source notes that although Mr. Al-Sadhan was a peaceful social media activist,
he was tried in a court with competence over terrorist crimes. The source also argues that the
behaviour of both the executive and judiciary branches of the State clearly shows that the
arrest, trials and imprisonment of Mr. Al-Sadhan are a direct result of his political beliefs. In
the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group established that his
detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his fundamental rights. When detention has
resulted from the active exercise of civil and political rights, as is the case here, there is a
strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the
grounds of discrimination based on political or other views.31
110.
For these reasons, the Working Group finds credible the source’s submission that Mr.
Al-Sadhan’s arrest, conviction and lengthy sentence are to silence and punish him for sharing
his views peacefully, an activity that is expressly protected by international law.
111.
The Working Group thus finds that Mr. Al-Sadhan was deprived of his liberty on
discriminatory grounds, because of his political opinion. His detention violates articles 2 and
7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is arbitrary under category V.
26 See opinions No. 47/2017, para. 28; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (j); and No. 53/2018, para. 77 (c). See also
E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
27 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18.
28 General Assembly resolution 68/156; and opinion No. 47/2017, para. 26. According to rules 43 (1)
(b) and 44 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, prolonged solitary confinement – meaning for a time period
in excess of 15 consecutive days – constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment.
29 A/HRC/45/16, para. 53.
30 Opinions No. 48/2016, para. 52; No. 3/2017, para. 33; No. 6/2017, para. 43; No. 29/2017, para. 64;
and No. 39/2018, para. 42.
31 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; and No. 59/2019, para. 79.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
16
v.
Concluding remarks
112.
The Working Group recalls rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson Mandela Rules,
which provide that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and
with respect for their inherent dignity. With reference to paragraph 105 above, the Working
Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, for appropriate
action.
113.
In its 30-year history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of its
international human rights obligations in over 65 cases.32 The Working Group reiterates its
concern that this indicates a widespread or systemic problem of arbitrary detention in Saudi
Arabia, which amounts to a serious violation of international law. 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.33
114.
The Working Group welcomes the voluntary pledges pursuant to General Assembly
resolution 60/251 concerning the Human Rights Council by Saudi Arabia.34 In particular, the
Working Group lauds the expressed willingness of the Government to cooperate with the
Council and its various mechanisms, including the special procedures. In the light of this and
recalling its request for a country visit reiterated on 24 August 2021 and 4 February 2022,
the Working Group would welcome the opportunity, at the Government’s earliest
convenience, to conduct a visit to Saudi Arabia in order to engage with the Government in a
constructive manner and to offer its assistance in addressing its serious concerns regarding
instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Disposition
115.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is
arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
116.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Al-Sadhan without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
117.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al-Sadhan immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law. 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 his immediate unconditional release.
118.
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-
32 Decisions No. 40/1992, No. 60/1993, No. 19/1995 and No. 48/1995, and opinions No. 8/2002, No.
25/2004, No. 34/2005, No. 35/2005, No. 9/2006, No. 12/2006, No. 36/2006, No. 37/2006, No.
4/2007, No. 9/2007, No. 19/2007, No. 27/2007, No. 6/2008, No. 11/2008, No. 13/2008, No. 22/2008,
No. 31/2008, No. 36/2008, No. 37/2008, No. 21/2009, No. 2/2011, No. 10/2011, No. 11/2011, No.
17/2011, No. 18/2011, No. 19/2011, No. 30/2011, No. 31/2011, No. 33/2011, No. 41/2011, No.
42/2011, No. 43/2011, No. 44/2011, No. 45/2011, No. 8/2012, No. 22/2012, No. 52/2012, No.
53/2012, No. 32/2013, No. 44/2013, No. 45/2013, No. 46/2013, No. 14/2014, No. 32/2014, No.
13/2015, No. 38/2015, No. 52/2016, No. 61/2016, No. 10/2017, No. 63/2017, No. 93/2017, No.
10/2018, No. 68/2018, No. 22/2019, No. 26/2019, No. 56/2019, No. 71/2019, No. 33/2020, No.
86/2020, No. 92/2020, No. 34/2021, No. 59/2021 and No. 72/2021.
33 A/HRC/13/42, para. 30. See also opinions No. 1/2011, para. 21; No. 37/2011, para. 15; No. 51/2017,
para. 57; and No. 56/2017, para. 72.
34 A/75/377.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/30
17
Sadhan and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
119.
The Working Group requests the Government to bring its laws into conformity with
the recommendations made in the present opinion and with the commitments made by Saudi
Arabia under international human rights law.
120.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
the Special Rapporteur on the independence of lawyers and judges; the Special Rapporteur
on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the Special
Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health, for appropriate action.
121.
The Working Group recommends that the Government accede to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
122.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
123.
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. Al-Sadhan has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al-Sadhan;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Al-
Sadhan’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Saudi Arabia with its international obligations in line
with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
124.
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.
125.
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.
126.
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.35
[Adopted on 5 April 2022]
35 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.