A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

GE.22-25001(E)

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its ninety-fourth session,

29 August–2 September 2022

Opinion No. 49/2022 concerning Sayed Mujtaba Saeed Alawi Ali al-Khabbaz,

Hasan Hameed Abdulnabi Ali Naser Meshaimea, Sayed Ahmed Hadi Alawi

Amin Hasan and Sayed Mahmood Ali Moosa Jaafar al-Alawi (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 17 February 2022, the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Bahrain a communication concerning Sayed Mujtaba Saeed

Alawi Ali al-Khabbaz, Hasan Hameed Abdulnabi Ali Naser Meshaimea, Sayed Ahmed Hadi

Alawi Amin Hasan and Sayed Mahmood Ali Moosa Jaafar al-Alawi. The Government

replied to the communication on 12 April 2022 and submitted additional information in a late

reply on 25 May 2022. 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);

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

General Assembly

Distr.: General

7 November 2022

Original: English

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

2

(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).

Submissions

Communication from the source

4.

The source submits that the four individuals are part of a trial of eight defendants

accused of belonging to and taking part in activities of the terrorist organization the Al-Ashtar

Brigades.

5.

Sayed Mujtaba Saeed Alawi Ali al-Khabbaz, born in 2002, is a Bahraini citizen. At

the time of his arrest, he was a minor enrolled at university.

6.

On 1 October 2020, security patrols surrounded Mr. Al-Khabbaz while he was with a

friend in the area of Ghuraifa. Security police forces and Criminal Investigation Directorate

officers arrested him without a warrant, failing to mention the reason for the arrest.

7.

He was taken to the special investigations building at the airport and then to the

Criminal Investigation Directorate in Adliya, where Mr. Al-Khabbaz, still 17 years old, was

held and interrogated without his lawyer for 10 days. He was only able to call his family for

one minute the day after his arrest to inform them of his location. Before this, his family had

no knowledge of his whereabouts or fate.

8.

During the investigation period, national security officers severely tortured and

mistreated Mr. Al-Khabbaz, both physically and psychologically, to extract false confessions

to the charges against him. He was stripped of his clothes, beaten with batons and

electrocuted in sensitive areas, kicked and hit on his ears, punched in the abdomen, held in a

cold room, cursed at, intimidated and threatened with sexual assault. Succumbing to the

torture, Mr. Al-Khabbaz confessed to the charges. As a result of torture and poor nutrition,

he lost 7 kg during those 10 days and suffers from ongoing back pain. Despite requests, he

was not medically examined nor did he receive any treatment.

9.

On 7 October 2020, Mr. Al-Khabbaz was presented to the Public Prosecution Office.

On the same day, he was transferred to the Dry Dock Detention Centre, and he was not able

to contact his family for five days. Although Mr. Al-Khabbaz and his family talk on the phone

every day and have a video call once per week, they have not been able to meet since his

arrest because of restrictions related to coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

10.

Since his arrest, Mr. Al-Khabbaz has not been allowed to communicate with his

lawyer and therefore did not manage to adequately prepare for his trial. According to the

source, as Mr. Al-Khabbaz had never been summoned or arrested before and was a minor at

the time of arrest, the recently issued 2021 Law on restorative justice for children and their

protection from maltreatment applied to him. The first session of the Fourth High Criminal

Court, which considered the case of all defendants, was held on 27 May 2021. At the

beginning, Mr. Al-Khabbaz was tried by the same court as the rest of the defendants. On 30

November 2021, the lawyer informed the family that Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s case was being

transferred to the Restorative Justice Court for the Child. However, the family received no

documents to this effect.

11.

Two experts from the Restorative Justice Court interviewed Mr. Al-Khabbaz and his

family. Reportedly, their questions were an attempt to frame Mr. Al-Khabbaz as a troubled

child who had committed the acts of which he was accused. The experts’ report indicated

that they saw no reason to apply procedures of the Law on restorative justice, advising the

court to issue any punishment it deemed fit against Mr. Al-Khabbaz. His lawyer rejected this

report.

12.

Despite the oral confirmation that his case had been transferred to the Restorative

Court, Mr. Al-Khabbaz continued to attend the same court sessions as the other defendants,

and his sentence is listed in the Fourth High Criminal Court judgment. Reportedly, the judge

of the Restorative Court is the same judge of the Fourth High Criminal Court.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

3

13.

Due to the poor hygiene conditions in Dry Dock Detention Centre, Mr. Al-Khabbaz

contracted scabies. He was consequently put in medical isolation for three weeks and given

a cream to treat his skin condition. Mr. Al-Khabbaz still suffers from pain in his back as a

result of the torture, but he was only given painkillers and has not received proper medical

treatment despite his repeated requests. Mr. Al-Khabbaz is a thalassemia carrier and suffers

from glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. Reportedly, no strict measures have

been implemented inside the prison to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

14.

On 6 January 2021, Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s family submitted a complaint to the

Ombudsman regarding allegations of torture and cruel treatment. Subsequently, officers from

the Ministry of Interior visited Mr. Al-Khabbaz in the detention centre and asked him about

these allegations and the torture methods used against him. On 8 February 2021, his case was

transferred to the Special Investigative Unit to complete the investigation. Four months later,

after receiving no response, Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s family contacted the Special Investigative

Unit and was told that officers would visit the prison, which they have not yet done.

15.

On 12 January 2022, Mr. Al-Khabbaz was sentenced to 3 years in prison and a fine of

100,000 Bahraini dinars for: joining a terrorist organization for the purpose of disrupting the

law or violating rights and freedoms; training to use weapons and explosives intending to

commit terrorist crimes; providing, delivering or receiving funding for an association that

practises terrorism; unlicensed manufacturing, acquiring and possession of explosives for

terrorist aims; intentional use of explosives for the purposes of endangering the lives and

economic interests of others; and attempting to detonate a bomb by planting an explosive

cannister.

16.

Hasan Hameed Abdulnabi Ali Naser Meshaimea, born in 1995, is a Bahraini citizen,

employed at K-Link Bahrain at the time of his arrest.

17.

On 1 October 2020, at 11 p.m., a number of masked police officers driving jeeps and

crime scene personnel cars entered the pool facilities where Mr. Meshaimea was located.

Some of the officers were wearing black T-shirts with military trousers and others were

wearing clothes with the emblem of the Ministry of Interior. They took him and stripped him,

except for his underwear. One officer physically attacked him and slapped his face, while

two others, one carrying a thick wooden stick and the other carrying big metal tongs,

threatened him with a beating.

18.

The officers arrested him without a warrant, failing to mention any reason. It was later

revealed that Mr. Meshaimea, who had never been summoned before, was arrested on the

basis of the confessions of another detainee, who had mentioned his name under torture.

19.

The officers took Mr. Meshaimea to a jeep and drove to his apartment. Arriving after

midnight, they searched the apartment and confiscated Mr. Meshaimea’s tablet computer,

again failing to provide a search warrant. One officer had a video camera and was filming

the entire raid. The officers also confiscated other items belonging to Mr. Meshaimea.

20.

Mr. Meshaimea’s family had no news of his fate or whereabouts until he called at

around 4 a.m. on 2 October 2021, indicating that he was at the Criminal Investigation

Directorate. However, he could not see them yet. Following that call, Mr. Meshaimea was

interrogated without a lawyer for 10 consecutive days, during which he was only allowed to

call his family once to ask them to bring him clothes and a towel.

21.

During the interrogation period, Mr. Meshaimea was subjected to verbal and physical

abuse, threats and beatings to extract false confessions from him. Investigations officers at

the Criminal Investigation Directorate kept Mr. Meshaimea handcuffed throughout the

interrogations, beat him on his head and his back, restricted his access to the bathroom,

insulted him and his family, deprived him of sleep, placed him in a very cold room followed

by a very hot one, and threatened to implicate a family member of his if he did not confess

or if he mentioned the torture he had suffered. He was prohibited from praying for the entire

period of the interrogation, and his handcuffs were not removed when he needed to use the

bathroom. As a result of ill-treatment and torture, Mr. Meshaimea suffered from back pain

and lost 5 kg.

22.

During the 10-day investigation, on 7 October 2021, Mr. Meshaimea was presented

to the Public Prosecution Office without a lawyer. His statement was taken twice, as the first

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

4

one did not fit the narrative that the officers were aiming for. Subsequently, he was returned

to the Criminal Investigation Directorate, where he was interrogated for two days while being

video recorded, before being transferred to the Dry Dock Detention Centre.

23.

Before his trial, Mr. Meshaimea was not allowed to meet with his first lawyer, who

was contacted by the authorities a short time before the first session at the Public Prosecution

Office. The lawyer was unable to make it to the session on time. The second lawyer, who is

currently handling Mr. Meshaimea’s case, was only allowed to meet him once, for 10 minutes

after the trial had begun.

24.

Since Mr. Meshaimea’s arrest, his family has been unable to visit him due to COVID-

19 restrictions. A family member asked to meet him eight months after his arrest but was

only allowed to see him for 10 minutes from behind a glass barrier and in the presence of the

other defendants in the case. Besides that, Mr. Meshaimea only has contact with his family

through video calls, once per week.

25.

Mr. Meshaimea still suffers from back pain as a result of torture. Prior to his arrest,

he underwent a gastric sleeve surgery and requires vitamins and nutritional supplements

prescribed by his doctor, but he has not been provided with any since his detention began.

26.

In June 2021, Mr. Meshaimea’s lawyer submitted a complaint to the Special

Investigative Unit regarding the ill-treatment and torture that Mr. Meshaimea had been

subjected to during interrogation. Subsequently, Special Investigative Unit officers visited

Mr. Meshaimea at the detention centre and took his statement regarding the torture

allegations, which they included in their report. However, according to Mr. Meshaimea’s

lawyer, some elements of his statement were omitted from the report, including the fact that

Mr. Meshaimea was stripped of his clothes during his arrest.

27.

Since his transfer to the Dry Dock Detention Centre, Mr. Meshaimea has been

subjected to various forms of ill-treatment, such as midnight raids and violent searches of his

prison cell by a number of police officers. He also suffers from a lack of access to adequate

hygiene. There are cockroaches and mice in the bathroom, not enough beds for the 11

detainees in the cell, and the beds and blankets are in very bad condition. As for COVID-19

measures, prisoners are not provided with sufficient personal protective equipment. As a

result of the unhygienic conditions, Mr. Meshaimea contracted scabies, which lasted several

months. He was consequently placed in solitary confinement for one week on two occasions.

The second time, upon his request, he was given a new mattress and blanket, but was not

allowed to take them with him upon his return to the group cell.

28.

On 12 January 2022, Mr. Meshaimea was sentenced by the Fourth High Criminal

Court to 10 years in prison and a fine of 100,000 dinars fine (see para. 15 above for the

charges).

29.

Sayed Ahmed Hadi Alawi Amin Hasan, born in 2000, is a Bahraini citizen, who was

attending the University of Bahrain when he was arrested.

30.

On 1 October 2020, at 12 p.m., officers in civilian clothing arrested Mr. Hasan without

a warrant at a checkpoint in the area of Ghuraifa while he was with a friend in the car on their

way to his grandfather’s house. The officers failed to mention a reason for arrest. He had

never been summoned or arrested before.

31.

From his arrest at 12 p.m. until 12 a.m., Mr. Hasan’s family were unaware of his

whereabouts or fate. At 12 a.m., the authorities called Mr. Hasan’s family, informing them

that he was at the Criminal Investigation Directorate, and allowed him to talk with them for

five minutes. Directly after that call, the police raided Mr. Hasan’s family house in Salmabad.

32.

At the Criminal Investigation Directorate, Mr. Hasan was interrogated for one week

without his lawyer. Upon his arrest and during the interrogation period, Directorate officers,

police officers and officers in civilian clothing threatened and tortured Mr. Hasan by stripping

him of his clothes, and then subjecting him to severe beating, electrocution, cursing and

defamatory insults. They extracted false confessions and forced him to sign and agree to the

charges held against him. Mr. Hasan was not allowed to defend himself or to sleep for the

entire week. Despite requesting to see a doctor, Mr. Hasan was not examined or provided

with any treatment. Reportedly, while he was being tortured, officers treated Mr. Hasan in a

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

5

discriminatory manner based on his belonging to the Jaafari Shi’a sect, cursing his religious

sect and its prominent figures.

33.

On 7 October 2020, Mr. Hasan, along with other defendants, was presented to the

Public Prosecution Office, where he was charged without being allowed to speak or defend

himself. Since his arrest, Mr. Hasan has not been allowed to communicate with his lawyer

and did not manage to adequately prepare for his trial. In addition, since his arrest, Mr. Hasan

has not been able to meet with his family due to COVID-19 restrictions. In September 2021,

prison authorities prevented him from calling his family for a week.

34.

On 12 January 2022, Mr. Hasan was sentenced by the Fourth High Criminal Court to

10 years in prison and a fine of 100,000 dinars fine (see para. 15 above for the charges).

35.

Sayed Mahmood Ali Moosa Jaafar al-Alawi, born in 1999, is a Bahraini citizen who

was a student when the authorities arrested him for the second time.

36.

Mr. Al-Alawi was arrested for the first time on 29 July 2015, at the age of 15, and he

was sentenced to seven years in prison on 20 December 2015. After serving four and a half

years of his sentence, he was released within the framework of alternative sentencing on 17

December 2019, but was arrested again less than a year later.

37.

On 30 September 2020, officers in civilian clothing, accompanied by one officer in

security forces uniform, raided Mr. Al-Alawi’s family home in Hawrat Sanad at 10.30 p.m.

The officers arrested him without a warrant from the roof of the neighbours’ house, and they

failed to mention a reason for the arrest. They searched the house until around 12.30 a.m.,

seizing two cars registered in the name of a relative, which they have not returned.

38.

Mr. Al-Alawi’s family had no information about his whereabouts or fate until he

called them at 2 a.m., informing them that he was at the Criminal Investigation Directorate.

Following that call, contact with him was cut off for five days.

39.

Upon his arrest, Mr. Al-Alawi was interrogated without a lawyer for seven days, until

7 October 2020, when he was presented to the Public Prosecution Office without his lawyer.

During the interrogation period, Criminal Investigation Directorate officers tortured him and

extracted a forced confession. Reportedly, he was also taken to a mall in the city centre late

at night, after the complex had closed, where a video was filmed of him acting as if he was

dismantling explosives. The video was presented in court as evidence of the incident that

occurred prior to his arrest.

40.

On 8 October 2020, Mr. Al-Alawi was examined by a forensic doctor. The medical

report concluded that he appeared in good general health; his consciousness and awareness

were sound; he walked and talked in a normal manner without any disabilities; and he had

no injuries or marks signalling criminal violence, resistance or restraint.

41.

On 12 October 2020, Mr. Al-Alawi’s family submitted a complaint to the

Ombudsman regarding the fact that the officers had failed to mention the reason for his arrest

and to present an arrest warrant or any legal proof that they had permission to raid the house,

search it for an hour and a half, and seize two cars belonging to a relative of Mr. Al-Alawi.

The Ombudsman replied by claiming that the officers had not committed any wrongful act.

The complaint was dismissed on 26 October 2020.

42.

On 5 February 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi was transferred by ambulance from the Al-Qal’a

clinic to the emergency department of the Salmaniya medical complex after refusing to eat,

drink or speak for 24 hours, and for expressing suicidal thoughts. Clinical notes on a referral

form to the medical complex, dated 5 February 2021, indicated that Mr. Al-Alawi, who had

no history of drug use or use of psychiatric medication, was not responding to questions, was

looking at the ceiling and the walls, wanted to meet his grandfather who had passed away

four months earlier, and had tried to commit suicide.

43.

On 6 February 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi was admitted to the psychiatric hospital in

Salmaniya neighbourhood in Manama, following the deterioration of his psychological

health. On 7 February 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi was able to call his family, informing them, in a

weak and miserable voice, that he was at the psychiatric hospital, refusing to speak any

further. After the call, the family went to the psychiatric hospital where they were refused

entry as they did not have a permit from the detention centre. After contacting the detention

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

6

centre, the family’s request for a permit was denied on the grounds that it was forbidden to

visit the hospital. The only contact they had was through 15-minute phone calls every

Monday and Friday. On 9 February 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi’s family sent out a call appealing to

various organizations to help them discover his fate and visit him at the psychiatric hospital.

44.

On 11 February 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi’s family submitted a second complaint to the

Ombudsman regarding the refusal of the detention centre to grant them a permit to visit him

at the psychiatric hospital. Explaining that Mr. Al-Alawi was in good health before his arrest,

the family asked for the Ombudsman’s help in obtaining the permit and finding out how and

why his psychological health and well-being had deteriorated between October 2020 and

February 2021. The Ombudsman responded that after reviewing the complaint, the

competent authorities had been contacted and the family’s request had been transferred to the

authorities for consideration. The Ombudsman decided to dismiss their complaint on 21

February 2021.

45.

On 7 June 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi’s family sent a letter to the Special Investigative Unit

requesting that it investigate allegations of torture and forcible extraction of confessions from

Mr. Al-Alawi, leading to the deterioration of his psychological health to the point that he had

to be transferred to a psychiatric ward. The Special Investigative Unit did not reply or meet

Mr. Al-Alawi.

46.

On 15 June 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi’s psychiatrist issued an assessment of Mr. Al-Alawi’s

condition, explaining that during the first three days of his admission to the psychiatric

hospital, Mr. Al-Alawi had been seen attempting to strangle himself with the bed sheets and

had refused to eat, drink or speak. He was consequently given intravenous fluid therapy, and

after a lot of convincing, had started to eat again. The doctor also observed that Mr. Al-Alawi

was exhibiting depressive symptoms but refused to take antidepressants as he considered his

psychological condition to be a result of his circumstances rather than a disorder. The doctor

further observed that Mr. Al-Alawi was speaking to himself and making gestures; was

reluctant to express his thoughts; believed that he was a guardian and that guardians did not

die but rather moved from one world to the other, and that his behaviour would not constitute

suicide, but rather a move to the other world; demonstrated emotional attachment to an

imaginary girl and a change in physical behaviour that made it seem as if he was writing or

drawing on his body; and demonstrated recurrent involuntary face grimacing and lifting of

the shoulders.

47.

During one of the trial sessions, Mr. Al-Alawi’s lawyer requested that his client’s case

be referred to a tripartite medical committee on the basis of the recommendation of his

treating physician, as Mr. Al-Alawi was experiencing convulsions and hallucinations, and

despite taking his medications, his condition was not improving as required. Reportedly,

without explaining Mr. Al-Alawi’s medical history, the court appointed tripartite committee

concluded that Mr. Al-Alawi could differentiate right from wrong and that he did not have

diminished responsibility, thus contradicting the report of the psychiatric hospital of 15 June

2021.

48.

Mr. Al-Alawi did not have access to the lawyer who was appointed by his family

during the trial. Authorities only acknowledged his State-assigned attorney, who never met

with him. Supposedly incriminating surveillance videos from the mall in the city centre were

played in court several times, but according to Mr. Al-Alawi’s lawyer, none of them revealed

the presence of explosives, incendiary balloons or weapons, nor did it appear that Mr. Al-

Alawi had carried or deposited any objects as mentioned in the confessions. All that could be

seen in the videos was a person wearing a mask, a hat and sunglasses, walking in the mall,

not engaging in any suspicious activity. Reportedly, the videos were taken after Mr. Al-

Alawi’s arrest in an attempt to fabricate false evidence against him. The court indicated that

Mr. Al-Alawi had failed to attend court sessions, as if he had done so willingly, despite the

fact that he was at the psychiatric hospital and had not been informed of the court session

dates.

49.

On 12 January 2022, Mr. Al-Alawi was sentenced by the Fourth High Criminal Court

to 15 years in prison and a fine of 100,000 dinars (see para. 15 for the charges).

50.

Mr. Al-Alawi’s condition has not been improving. On 2 February 2022, he tested

positive for COVID-19 and was still held in the same ward of the psychiatric hospital. On 12

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

7

February 2022, Mr. Al-Alawi escaped from the psychiatric hospital and was found hiding at

his relatives’ house. He did not seem to be fully aware, complaining of a severe headache

and begging to be protected from the individuals following him and wanting to kill him. Mr.

Al-Alawi was rearrested within two hours of his escape, without his family being provided

with any information about his whereabouts or well-being. Upon inquiring, the family was

told that Mr. Al-Alawi had not been returned to the psychiatric hospital. The source is

concerned about his whereabouts and disappearance. On 12 February, at night, two of Mr.

Al-Alawi’s relatives were chained and then arrested at their house on the charge of sheltering

Mr. Al-Alawi. They were not able to communicate with their family members. Another

relative was also arrested on 14 February after being summoned to the police station. The

relatives currently remain in detention.

Case file of Fourth High Criminal Court

51.

The source submits that in the cases of Mr. Al-Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea and Mr.

Hasan, the authorities used evidence showing that the defendants had travelled to the Islamic

Republic of Iran in order to claim that they had undergone training on how to use weapons

and explosives with the intention of committing terrorist crimes. The authorities failed to take

into account the testimonies given by the defendants’ relatives, disproving the above-

mentioned accusation. In fact, the relatives testified that they had been with the defendants

throughout their tourist trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran. These statements were

disregarded by the court.

52.

Regarding the evidence used by the prosecution, the case files reveal that DNA

samples that match those of the defendants were extracted from various objects such as carton,

metal and plastic boxes, duct tape, electrical wires and money. However, the prosecution

failed to establish a strong link between these DNA samples and the alleged crimes, and

therefore it is unclear how these samples serve as incriminating evidence.

53.

Furthermore, during a questioning by a lawyer, which was recorded in the case files,

one defendant stated that he only mentioned the name of another defendant in his confession

because the interrogation officers forced him to do so under the threat of torture. The source

argues that such a statement should have put into question the validity of the statements made

by the defendants during the interrogation. Nevertheless, the courts used the confessions as

evidence to incriminate the defendants and disregarded their statement regarding their

coercion and torture.

54.

Additionally, the case files reveal that the defendants’ lawyers requested access to the

footage of Mr. Meshaimea’s interrogations. However, the authorities claimed that such

footage did not exist, which puts into question their ability to investigate allegations of torture

and mistreatment during interrogation. The defendants were sentenced after having spent

over a year in detention.

Appeals

55.

The first session of the First Supreme Criminal Court considering the defendants’

appeals was held on 31 January 2022. The proceedings were postponed because the judge

had requested a detailed report from experts regarding Mr. Al-Khabbaz, who was under 18

at the time of the arrest. Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s lawyer rejected the first expert report of the

Restorative Court. On 1 February 2022, a different team of two female experts of the

Restorative Court, in its appeals capacity, interviewed Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s family and had a

video call with Mr. Al-Khabbaz, asking similar questions. They advised that the decision of

the appeals court would be based on their report. The next appeals hearing was to be held on

7 March 2022.

56.

The source submits that four defendants were subjected to incommunicado detention.

They were first able to call their families and inform them of their location between three and

a half hours and one day after their arrest. However, following these initial phone calls,

communication with the defendants was cut off for periods ranging from 5 to 10 days.

57.

The source argues that four defendants were subjected to an unfair trial as they were

arrested without a warrant and without having been given a reason for their arrest; were not

granted access to legal counsel before their trial; were interrogated without their lawyers

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

8

present; and were not allowed to present evidence in their own defence. All defendants were

convicted on the basis of confessions they had made under torture and duress, and those

confessions were used by the prosecution as the primary evidence against the defendants.

Fabricated evidence was also relied on to falsely incriminate Mr. Al-Alawi. The forced

confession of one defendant was used as grounds for arresting Mr. Meshaimea.

58.

The authorities have therefore failed to invoke a satisfactory legal basis to justify the

defendants’ arrest or deprivation of liberty and to observe the international norms and

guarantees relating to the right to a fair trial enshrined in article 14 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. Because this violation of international norms, including with regard to due process

and fair trial rights, is extensive and widespread across the four cases, all cases fall under

categories I and III of the Working Group. The detention of the defendants is thus arbitrary

and in violation of articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.

59.

According to the source, all four defendants have been subjected to torture and ill-

treatment in order to extract confessions or get them to sign false statements that were used

as evidence against them in trial. None of these torture claims were investigated by authorities

and the victims did not obtain redress or compensation. There is reason to believe that Mr.

Al-Alawi’s torture and ill-treatment led to the serious deterioration of his psychological well-

being. Consequently, authorities have also violated their obligations under articles 12, 13, 14

and 15 of the Convention against Torture and articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant.

Response from the Government

60.

On 17 February 2022, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source

to the Government of Bahrain under its regular communication procedure. The Working

Group requested the Government to provide detailed information by 19 April 2022 about the

current situation of the four individuals and clarify the legal provisions justifying their

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 their

physical and mental integrity. The Government submitted its timely reply on 12 April 2022

and additional information on 25 May 2022, which was after the deadline.

61.

The Government submits that the four individuals, who are all in prison, have been

charged with four other fugitives for the following offences: belonging to a terrorist group;

training in the use of explosives; possession, acquisition and use of explosive materials;

receipt and delivery of funds destined for a group that carries out terrorist activities; and

intention to cause an explosion.

62.

The Government submits that as a result of search and investigation efforts, a terrorist

group was uncovered, which included fugitive elements living outside of Bahrain. The group

comprised followers of the terrorist organization Ashtar Brigades and was in contact with

terrorist elements inside Bahrain with the aim of carrying out bombings against vital

economic facilities. Consequently, authorities detained a number of terrorist elements who

had carried out several bombings and attempted bombings – having planted two explosive

devices in a shop within a mall – against vital economic facilities in Bahrain.

63.

The Government submits that the first three individuals were taken into detention on

1 October 2020, and the fourth was arrested on 30 September 2020. On 7 October 2020, they

were brought before the prosecutor for interrogation, during which they admitted to the

offences of which they were accused.

64.

The prosecutor ordered the detainees to be placed in prison and referred the case to

the criminal court.

65.

The Government submits that none of the accused were subjected to torture during

the investigation. A lawyer was contacted to act on behalf of the first individual, and another

lawyer was contacted to act on behalf of the second individual during the investigation;

however, neither lawyer was reachable by telephone. No lawyers accompanied the third and

fourth individuals during the investigation phase. Nonetheless, all the defendants were

represented by lawyers during the trial.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

9

66.

Following several court sessions, during which all legal guarantees were upheld, the

court sentenced the first individual to three years in prison, the second and third individuals

to 10 years and the fourth individual to 15 years. Each of the defendants was also fined

100,000 dinars. All the defendants appealed against the ruling. The case remains under

examination, and the court has yet to issue a judgment.

67.

The Government submits that on 10 February 2021, the Special Investigative Unit

received documents related to the complaint submitted by Mr. Al-Khabbaz to the

Ombudsman. The Unit began its investigation by asking the complainant about the details of

his complaint. He alleged that he had been assaulted by law enforcement officers during his

arrest on 1 October 2020 and during his interrogation, with the aim of extracting information

and a confession from him. He denied suffering any psychological consequences. The Unit

reviewed the report of the forensic doctor who had examined the complainant on 8 October

2020, and the reports of the medical examinations that the complainant underwent on 2 and

9 October 2020, all of which proved an absence of any indication of criminal violence. The

Unit also interviewed members of the public security forces who had dealt with the

complainant, all of whom denied the allegations. The judicial police investigation report on

the matter was attached, and the complaint was dismissed, owing to a lack of supporting

evidence.

68.

The Government notes that on 7 June 2021, Mr. Meshaimea’s lawyer submitted a

complaint to the Special Investigative Unit alleging that his client had been subjected to

torture and ill-treatment. A member of the Unit visited the complainant in prison to ask him

about the details. The complainant confirmed that he had been assaulted by law enforcement

officers during his arrest on 1 October 2020 and during questioning, with the aim of

extracting a confession. He stated that he was not suffering any psychological repercussions.

According to the report of the forensic doctor who examined the complainant on 8 October

2020 and to the medical reports issued on 2 and 9 October 2020, there was no indication of

criminal violence. Lastly, the Unit interviewed members of the public security forces who

had dealt with the complainant, all of whom denied the allegations. The judicial police

investigation report on the matter was attached, and the complaint was filed, owing to a lack

of supporting evidence.

69.

The Government submits that the Unit has received no complaints relating to Mr.

Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi.

Further comments from the source

70.

On 12 April and 25 May 2022, the Government’s timely reply and its additional late

reply, respectively, were transmitted to the source for further comments, which the source

submitted on 26 April 2022 and 3 June 2022.

71.

The source notes that on 25 April 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgments

against Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi, while the Restorative Justice Court

upheld the judgment against Mr. Al-Khabbaz, despite the positive evaluation report of the

social experts.

72.

The Government’s response further reveals the individuals’ denial of access to legal

counsel. The source reiterates that the individuals were unable to communicate with their

lawyers and were interrogated without legal representation at the Criminal Investigation

Directorate and the investigation building at the airport. While the authorities contacted two

lawyers to represent Mr. Al-Khabbaz and Mr. Meshaimea, they only did so after Mr. Al-

Khabbaz and Mr. Meshaimea had already been in custody for six to seven days and right

before their interrogation before the Public Prosecution Office. As a result, the two lawyers

were unable to attend the interrogation before the Public Prosecution Office on time. The

source further notes that the Government does not explain why Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi

had no legal representation at the Public Prosecution Office. The source reiterates that Mr.

Al-Khabbaz was not allowed to meet with a lawyer at any point during his interrogation,

detention and trial.

73.

The source notes that due to threats of further torture and reprisals, the individuals did

not inform the Public Prosecution Office, but did later complain about their torture. The

Government also does not address the fact that Mr. Hasan was prevented from speaking or

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

10

defending himself at the Public Prosecution Office, so he could not disclose that he had been

tortured. He was therefore charged while remaining silent.

74.

The source notes that the Government indicates that the complaints raised to the

Special Investigative Unit in the cases of Mr. Al-Khabbaz and Mr. Meshaimea were

dismissed due to lack of evidence. However, during the initial trial of the defendants, the

arrest footage of three defendants and the interrogation footage of Mr. Meshaimea were

requested, but the authorities responded that such footage was unavailable, putting into

question the availability of sound evidence during Special Investigative Unit investigations

and the mechanism through which an independent and effective investigation could be

performed. Since the arrests and interrogations were not filmed, the performance of officers

cannot be assessed objectively, leaving the Unit to resort to questioning the officers

themselves and taking their denial as evidence against the victims’ claims.

75.

The source submits that the Government has failed to address Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s

transfer to the investigation building at the airport, where he was tortured and threatened with

sexual assault in order to coerce him to confess to the charges.

76.

During his questioning by the Special Investigative Unit, Mr. Al-Khabbaz described

the forms of torture to which he was subjected and the circumstances of his arrest. His family

was not informed of any investigation by the Unit or of the outcome, even though they had

requested follow-up information. According to the source, the Government has failed to

address the fact that Mr. Al-Khabbaz lost around 7 kg during the interrogation and suffers

from thalassemia.

77.

The source also notes that the Government has not addressed the fact that not all of

Mr. Meshaimea’s allegations were included in the Special Investigative Unit report, and that

his statement at the Public Prosecution Office was taken twice because the authorities who

took the statement the first time were not satisfied with its contents.

78.

While the Government claims that there is no complaint raised on behalf of Mr. Al-

Alawi, on 7 June 2021, Mr. Al-Alawi’s relative sent a letter to the Special Investigative Unit

requesting an investigation into the torture that had led to the deterioration of his mental

health and his transfer to a psychiatric hospital. The family had previously submitted two

complaints, in February and October 2021, which were dismissed by the Ombudsman, who

stated that no criminal offence had been committed. On 7 September 2021, a request was

sent to the Ombudsman inquiring about the deterioration of Mr. Al-Alawi’s mental health

and the denial of family visits at the psychiatric hospital. The Ombudsman replied on 6

December 2021 that an investigation conducted by the Special Investigative Unit into the

allegations of torture was ongoing.

79.

Reportedly, during the questioning carried out by the Special Investigative Unit, Mr.

Al-Alawi detailed the torture he had suffered during his arrest and interrogation. He attributed

the deterioration of his mental health to the torture to which he had been subjected.

80.

The source notes that Mr. Al-Alawi and his relatives are being tried in relation to his

escape on 12 February 2022. While the relatives were released after having been detained for

a period of time, Mr. Al-Alawi was eventually transferred to Jau Prison. His family had been

unaware of his whereabouts since he was re-arrested after his escape, and they received no

formal notification of his location. On 19 February 2022, they received information about his

whereabouts through unofficial channels. Mr. Al-Alawi has not been able to meet with his

lawyer to prepare for his trial.

Discussion

81.

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

While the Working Group cannot accept the additional information as if it had been presented

within the deadline, it will render its opinion on the basis of all the information it has obtained,

in accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of work.

82.

In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the four individuals 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

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

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

11

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

those lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s

allegations.2

83.

The Working Group notes that Mr. Al-Khabbaz was 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 and detention,3 and his case will be considered in the light of the obligations of Bahrain

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

i.

Category I

84.

The source argues that the four individuals were arrested without a warrant and

without being given a reason for their arrest. The Government does not respond to these

specific allegations in its reply. In its late reply, the Government states that arrest warrants

were issued but does not state that the warrants were invoked during the arrests. In contrast,

the source details the circumstances of the arrests, including the use of force against Mr.

Meshaimea during his arrest.

85.

Pursuant 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. All four

individuals were arrested without a warrant, in violation of that article. In order for

deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient 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.4 Weighing the submissions of both parties, the Working

Group concludes that this did not take place.

86.

Based on the information provided by the source, none of the individuals appears to

have been informed of the reasons for the arrest at the time of their arrest in violation of

article 9 (2) of the Covenant. Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is

arrested is to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and is to

be promptly informed of the charges. The reasons for arrest must be provided immediately

upon arrest.5 As the Working Group has stated, an arrest is arbitrary when it is carried out

without informing the arrested person of the reasons for the arrest.6

87.

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

charge is to be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has noted,

48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee “promptly”

before a judge following his or her arrest; any longer delay must remain absolutely

exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. 7 In the absence of information or

justification from the Government, the Working Group finds that none of the individuals was

brought promptly before a judicial authority, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. In

relation to Mr. Al-Khabbaz, who was a minor at the time of his arrest, the Working Group

recalls articles 37 (b) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The

Working Group recalls that every child arrested and deprived of his or her liberty should be

brought before a competent authority within 24 hours to examine the legality of the

deprivation of liberty or its continuation.8

88.

The Government submits that on 7 October 2020, the four individuals were brought

before the prosecutor for interrogation, during which they admitted to the offences of which

they were accused. The prosecutor then ordered them to be placed in prison and referred the

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

3 Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 1.

4 See opinions No. 9/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 46/2019 and No. 59/2019.

5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27; and opinion No. 30/2017, paras.

58–59.

6 Opinions No. 10/2015, para. 34; No. 46/2019, para. 51; 59/2019, para. 46; and No. 46/2020, para. 40.

7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 33. See also CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paras.

39–40.

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

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

12

case to the criminal court. The Working Group recalls that a prosecutorial body cannot be

considered a judicial authority for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.9

89.

The source submits that the four individuals were subjected to incommunicado

detention. Following initial phone calls after their arrest, communication with them was cut

off for periods ranging from five to 10 days. The Government does not deny this allegation

and, in its late second reply, reiterates that the individuals were allowed one phone call after

their arrest, which is consistent with the source’s submission. The source reiterates in its

further submissions that they were held incommunicado for their entire period of

interrogation, with no contact with their lawyers or family after the initial phone calls. The

Government, while referring to domestic legislation in its late reply, does not address this

specific factual claim made by the source.

90.

It appears that the individuals were unable to effectively exercise their right to

challenge their detention so that a court could decide without delay on its legality in

accordance with article 9 (4) of the Covenant. Holding persons so that they have no or

restricted access to the outside world, in particular to their family and lawyers, violates their

right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the

Covenant.10 Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty11

and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Given that the individuals were

unable to challenge their detention, their right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was also violated.

Aside from the initial period of incommunicado detention following their arrest, the source

also notes other instances in which the individuals were held incommunicado. After his

escape attempt from the psychiatric facility, Mr. Al-Alawi was able to inform his parents of

his whereabouts on 19 February 2022, but his family was unaware of his whereabouts since

he was re-arrested after his escape, and they had received no formal notification of his

location at the time of submission of the source’s further comments on 26 April 2022.

91.

Further, as the Human Rights Committee has observed, giving prompt and regular

access to family members, as well as to independent medical personnel and lawyers, is an

essential and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture and for protection against

arbitrary detention and infringement of personal security.12 Accordingly, the Working Group

finds that these individuals’ right to contact with the outside world was denied, in violation

of rule 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the

Nelson Mandela Rules)13 and principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection

of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Additionally, in relation to

the second arrest of Mr. Al-Alawi, there was a violation of principle 16 (1) of the Body of

Principles, which acknowledges that an individual must not be arrested or transferred without

the chance to notify (or require the authorities to notify) family members or other appropriate

persons about their whereabouts.

92.

For the reasons set out above, the Working Group finds that the detention of Mr. Al-

Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi is arbitrary under category I.

ii.

Category III

93.

The source argues that the four individuals were subjected to an unfair trial as they

were not granted access to legal counsel before their trial and were interrogated without their

lawyers. The Government does not deny this and submits that the individuals had legal

counsel during the trial. The source submits that since their arrest, Mr. Al-Khabbaz and Mr.

Hasan were not allowed to communicate with their lawyer and therefore did not manage to

adequately prepare for their trial. With regard to Mr. Meshaimea and Mr. Al-Alawi, even

when access to a lawyer was granted prior to trial, the time and facilities availed to Mr.

Meshaimea and Mr. Al-Alawi for the preparation of their defence was, in the Working

Group’s view, woefully inadequate. The Government does not refute these specific

9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 32; and opinion No. 5/2020.

10 See opinions No. 32/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 45/2019, No. 59/2019, No. 5/2020 and No. 41/2020.

11 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.

12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 58; and opinion No. 84/2020, para. 69.

13 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74–75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

13

allegations. Both parties accept that Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi were unrepresented when

presented before the Public Prosecution Office on 7 October 2021.

94.

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.14

The Working Group considers that the source has established that the individuals did not

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

including during their interrogation. As a result, they were not afforded the right to adequate

time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of

their choosing under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. In the case of Mr. Al-Khabbaz, the

Working Group recalls 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 preparation and presentation

of the defence, and until all appeals and/or reviews are exhausted.15

95.

The Working Group is unconvinced by the Government’s dismissal of allegations of

torture. This is in contrast to the detailed descriptions of alleged acts of physical and

psychological torture provided by the source, relating to Mr. Al-Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea

and Mr. Hasan. The general allegations relating to Mr. Al-Alawi are buttressed by detailed

submissions on the severe deterioration of his psychological health, following the allegations

of torture, including a suicide attempt and ongoing, severe psychological problems.

96.

The Working Group refers to the Government’s submissions on the investigation of

the Special Investigative Unit into the allegations of torture in the cases of Mr. Al-Alawi and

Mr. Meshaimea. In relation to Mr. Al-Alawi, the source refutes the Government’s claim that

no complaint was raised on his behalf and substantiates its claim by providing a letter sent to

the Special Investigative Unit by Mr. Al-Alawi’s father raising these allegations.

97.

The Working Group reiterates concerns previously raised about the Special

Investigative Unit’s independence and effectiveness.16 In its concluding observations issued

in 2017, the Committee against Torture noted that the investigative bodies of Bahrain,

including the Ombudsman and the Special Investigation Unit, were not independent or

effective. The Committee noted that since their establishment in 2012, the Ombudsman and

the Special Investigative Unit had had little or no effect, and that the authorities had provided

negligible information regarding the outcome of the activities of the Ombudsman and the

Unit.17 These findings are reinforced by the source’s submissions that the investigations

undertaken by the Unit lacked objectivity.

98.

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

facie case that the individuals were subjected to physical and psychological torture and ill-

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

Human Rights and article 7 of the Covenant. In addition, in relation to Mr. Al-Khabbaz, the

Working Group recalls his rights under article 37 (a) and (c) of the Convention on the Rights

of the Child and articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.18 The use of physical or

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

necessity and proportionality.19 The Working Group recalls that in May 2017, the Committee

against Torture noted its concern about reports of torture of individuals who were minors at

the time of arrest and about the incarceration of minors in Bahrain.20 Given the serious

14 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, para. 95 (e); and CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-

6, para. 44 (b).

15 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24, para. 49; and the United Nations

Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), rule 15.

16 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 28; and opinion No. 4/2021, para. 72.

17 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 28.

18 See also opinions No. 41/2015, para. 42; and No. 2/2021, para. 74.

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

20 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, paras. 26–27.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

14

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.

99.

The source submits that all four individuals were convicted on the basis of confessions

or signed statements made under torture and duress and that those statements or confessions

were being used by the prosecution as primary evidence against them. Additionally, it

submits that the forced confession of another individual was used as grounds for arresting

Mr. Meshaimea. The Working Group considers that the admission into evidence of a

statement obtained through torture renders the entire proceedings unfair.21 The burden is on

the Government to prove that the statements of the individuals were given freely,22 but it has

not done so. The individuals did not have access to a lawyer when they allegedly confessed

during the interrogations. The Government does not deny this. Confessions made in the

absence of legal counsel are not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.23 As a result,

the rights of the four individuals to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant

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

violated, as has principle 21 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under

Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which protects a detainee from self-incrimination

or compelled confessions: “It shall be prohibited to take undue advantage of the situation of

a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate

himself otherwise or to testify against any other person.”

100.

The Working Group recalls the Committee against Torture’s finding that 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. Moreover, the prosecutor was obliged to investigate and report the torture and forced

confessions in accordance with guidelines 12 and 16 of the Guidelines on the Role of

Prosecutors.24 Furthermore, during the questioning by a lawyer recorded in the case files, one

of the four individuals states that he only mentioned the name of another individual under the

threat of psychological and physical torture. The Working Group has found that the

admission of evidence from third parties extracted through torture also violates article 14 (3)

(g).25

101.

The Working Group has held that the prohibition against the use of self-incriminating

confessions is amplified when the victim is a child.26 In the case of Mr. Al-Khabbaz, the

Working Group recalls his presumption of innocence under article 40 (2) (b) (i) of the

Convention on the Rights of the Child and his right not to be compelled to confess guilt under

article 40 (2) (b) (iv) of the same Convention.27 The Working Group also notes that the

Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about the arbitrary detention of

children, reports of the ill-treatment of children by police and in detention centres, and the

alleged use of torture by law enforcement officials to elicit confessions from children in

detention in Bahrain.28

102.

The source also argues that the individuals were not allowed to present evidence in

their own defence. The Working Group notes that the Government does not respond to this

allegation, and it concludes that the principle of the equality of arms under article 14 (3) (e)

of the Covenant was violated. The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur

on the independence of judges and lawyers.29

103.

In the case of Mr. Al-Alawi, the source submits that fabricated evidence is also being

relied on to falsely incriminate him. The Government does not specifically rebut this

21 Opinions No. 43/2012, No. 34/2015, No. 52/2018 and No. 59/2019.

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

paras. 12–13 and 16–17.

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

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

24 Opinions No. 47/2017, para. 29; and No. 63/2020, para. 42.

25 Opinion No. 34/1995, paras. 6–8 (a).

26 Opinion No. 27/2014, paras. 27–30.

27 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 16.

28 CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, paras. 26–27.

29 Opinion 4/2021, para. 101.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

15

submission. While the Working Group does not substitute itself for the role of a domestic

factfinder, revelations that key prosecutorial evidence has been fabricated can be the basis

for finding a due process violation.30

104.

The source submits that in the first session of the Fourth High Criminal Court, which

considered the case of all defendants, held on 27 May 2021, Mr. Al-Khabbaz was tried with

the rest of the defendants. On 30 November 2021, the lawyer informed the family that Mr.

Al-Khabbaz’s case was transferred to the Restorative Justice Court for the Child, which on

25 April 2022 upheld the judgment in his case, despite the positive evaluation report by the

social experts. 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.31

105.

The Working Group concludes that the numerous violations of the individuals’ fair

trial and due process rights are of such gravity as to render the detention of Mr. Al-Khabbaz,

Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi arbitrary under category III.

106.

While the Working Group recognizes that States have an obligation to investigate and

prosecute those responsible for offences, it wishes to emphasize that this opinion is adopted

without prejudice to the guilt or otherwise of the four individuals. States parties to the

Covenant must uphold its provisions, violations of which have been identified in the present

case.32

iii.

Concluding remarks

107.

Despite the Government’s claim that the medical situations of Mr. Al-Khabbaz and

Mr. Al-Alawi are stable, the Working Group remains concerned, in the light of the source’s

submissions that both suffer serious health issues. Mr. Al-Khabbaz was reportedly subjected

to torture as a minor and suffers from chronic disease, thalassemia and weight loss. Mr. Al-

Alawi has been held in a psychiatric facility and continues to suffer from a serious mental

health condition. According to article 10 (1) of the Covenant, all persons deprived of their

liberty must be treated with humanity and dignity, including receiving appropriate medical

care.33

108.

While the present opinion concerns the deprivation of liberty of four individuals,

including Mr. Al-Alawi, the Working Group is alarmed by the authorities’ treatment of Mr.

Al-Alawi’s relatives, as they were reportedly chained in their home, before being arrested for

sheltering Mr. Al-Alawi, who had escaped to their home. The Government does not address

these allegations.

109.

These four cases follow the pattern of numerous other cases brought before the

Working Group in recent years concerning arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Bahrain.34 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, 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.35

110.

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

appropriate time to conduct another visit.

111.

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

30 Opinion No. 59/2016, para. 63.

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

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

32 Opinion No. 62/2020, para. 77.

33 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.

34 See e.g. opinions No. 31/2019, No. 59/2019, No. 73/2019, No. 5/2020, No. 41/2020 and No. 87/2020.

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

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

16

The deprivation of liberty of Sayed Mujtaba Saeed Alawi Ali al-Khabbaz, Hasan

Hameed Abdulnabi Ali Naser Meshaimea, Sayed Ahmed Hadi Alawi Amin Hasan

and Sayed Mahmood Ali Moosa Jaafar al-Alawi, being in contravention of articles 3,

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

and (3), 9, 14 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is

arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.

112.

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

to remedy the situation of Mr. Al-Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi

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.

113.

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

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al-Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr.

Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation

and other reparations, in accordance with international law.36 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 their immediate release.

114.

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-

Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi, including the allegation that they

were tortured, and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of

their rights.

115.

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

the present case to 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.

116.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure

117.

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-Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi have

been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al-

Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Al-

Khabbaz, Mr. Meshaimea, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Al-Alawi’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 Bahrain with its international obligations in line with the

present opinion;

(e)

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

118.

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.

119.

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.

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

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/49

17

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.

120.

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.37

[Adopted on 31 August 2022]

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