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.22-15438(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. 62/2022 concerning Husain bin Abdulla bin Yusuf
al-Sadeq (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 22 March 2022 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Husain bin
Abdulla bin Yusuf al-Sadeq. The Government replied to the communication on 19 May 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/2022/62
General Assembly
Distr.: General
28 September 2022
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
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.
Husain bin Abdulla bin Yusuf al-Sadeq is a Saudi citizen born in 1975. He is the
holder of national ID number (withheld). According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq is a
prominent Saudi social activist from Tarout Island in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.
Prior to his arrest, he was involved in religious associations, voluntary charitable committees,
and the organization of religious and cultural events, activities and lectures in Qatif.
Context
5.
The source reports that on 24 September 2015, a stampede at the annual hajj in Saudi
Arabia caused the death of more than 2,400 pilgrims. The source notes that following the
stampede, existing tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran escalated,
since the largest number of victims was from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The source also
notes that the Islamic Republic of Iran held Saudi authorities responsible for the disaster and
criticized the management by Saudi Arabia of the holy sites.
6.
Following this stampede, the mayor of Tarout reportedly verbally attacked the Shiite
religious figure and Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The source adds that
Mr. Al-Sadeq subsequently called the mayor to protest against the verbal attacks, and an
argument escalated between the two, with the mayor accusing Mr. Al-Sadeq of insulting the
King and the Government of Saudi Arabia.
Arrest and detention
7.
The source reports that on 1 October 2015, Mr. Al-Sadeq was summoned to the Tarout
police station for investigation. The source notes that Mr. Al-Sadeq was summoned on the
basis of false allegations of insulting the King and the Government, which were presented by
the mayor against him (see para. 6 above). At the police station, officers reportedly arrested
Mr. Al-Sadeq without presenting an arrest warrant.
8.
The source notes that prior to his arrest, Mr. Al-Sadeq had been summoned in 1997
for participating in Shiite funeral processions and had been arrested in 2008 during a protest
in support of Gaza. In both cases, however, he had been released, and no charges had been
pressed against him.
9.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family was not officially notified of his arrest
by the authorities, but they expected him to have been arrested because he remained at the
Tarout police station for a time and did not return home. In this respect, the source notes that
when someone is held in the Tarout police station for several hours, it probably means that
they have been arrested and been transferred to and detained at Qatif Police Station. For this
reason, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family headed directly to Qatif Police Station on the day of his arrest,
where authorities confirmed that he was being held. The source notes that Mr. Al-Sadeq had
thus been transferred there within hours of his arrest, but the family is not sure exactly at
what time.
10.
Mr. Al-Sadeq reportedly spent two weeks at Qatif Police Station for questioning
relating to the charges levelled against him. During this period, his family would visit the
station on an almost daily basis. However, most times, they could only hand over his clothes
and food to the police. The source adds that when they were able to talk to him, it was for a
very short duration.
11.
After those two weeks, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family again went to Qatif Police Station to
visit him but were surprised to learn from an employee at the station that he had been
transferred to the General Directorate of Investigation (Mabahith) prison in Dammam. There,
he was allegedly held in solitary confinement and subjected to all kinds of physical and
psychological torture. According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq confessed to the charges
levelled against him under torture. The source adds that during this period of investigation
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
3
and solitary confinement, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family was not allowed to visit him or talk to him
on the phone. Three months following his transfer to the Mabahith prison, Mr. Al-Sadeq was
allowed a visit by his family.
12.
The source reports that because calls and visits with Mr. Al-Sadeq are monitored, his
family were not able to get details about the torture and ill-treatment he was subjected to.
Nevertheless, they know that during the investigation period, Mr. Al-Sadeq fell unconscious
for three days as a result of torture and had to be transferred to a hospital’s intensive care unit
for treatment. But his family still does not know which hospital he was transferred to or the
nature of the treatment he received. The source adds that traces of torture are still visible on
Mr. Al-Sadeq’s face and body and that he has lost weight and his build has greatly weakened.
13.
The source asserts that Mr. Al-Sadeq was targeted and accused by both the Tarout
mayor and the Saudi authorities because he is a prominent activist who has worked with
religious associations affiliated with the Shiite sect in Qatif and was responsible for
organizing religious events and activities. Furthermore, the source claims that during his
arrest and his investigation, Mr. Al-Sadeq was subjected to sectarian verbal insults based on
his belonging to the Shiite sect. However, the source is not able to provide updated
information on that matter as it is unable to retrieve any news about what Mr. Al-Sadeq
currently experiences inside the Mabahith prison.
14.
The source also reports that during the investigation period, Mr. Al-Sadeq was not
allowed to communicate with a lawyer nor to appoint one.
Trial proceedings
15.
The source reports that when the trial sessions started, Mr. Al-Sadeq still did not have
a lawyer and his family had not been informed about the trial beginning or about the charges
levelled against him. The source notes that Mr. Al-Sadeq was not allowed to hire a lawyer
for the first two years of his arrest. When he was finally allowed to appoint a lawyer, the
lawyer was not permitted to request a session with his client and was only able to see him in
court, hindering his ability to prepare for the trial. The source notes that Mr. Al-Sadeq was
thus only allowed to appoint a lawyer as a formality.
16.
During the court sessions, Mr. Al-Sadeq reportedly asked to present evidence proving
that the confessions had been extracted from him under torture, so he requested to see video
tapes of the interrogation sessions and also to receive his medical report proving that he had
been admitted to hospital with traces of torture all over his body and that he had been
unconscious for three days. However, the investigation and security services reportedly
refused.
17.
The source reports that when Mr. Al-Sadeq had to be present in court, he would
usually be transferred to Al-Ha’ir Prison in Riyadh a couple of days before his court sessions.
Once they were over, he would be taken back to Al-Ha’ir Prison for a couple of days before
being transferred back to the Mabahith prison in Dammam. The source adds that Mr. Al-
Sadeq’s family were never informed by the Saudi authorities of his transfers to Riyadh for
court sessions, but rather found out through the families of other detainees.
18.
The source notes that when Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family contacted the investigation
department of Dammam to enquire about his fate, they were referred to a criminal court in
Riyadh which informed them that the court session had already taken place. The source adds
that, at that time, the family had not been informed of the charges made against Mr. Al-Sadeq,
nor were they aware of the court proceedings which had taken place without the appointment
of a lawyer, or even the presence of an attorney. In fact, his family were only officially
notified by the court of the charges against him two years after his arrest and were only
allowed to visit him once at Al-Ha’ir Prison in Riyadh after his first trial session.
19.
In total, Mr. Al-Sadeq was reportedly charged with: (a) loyalty to foreign countries,
namely the Islamic Republic of Iran; (b) affiliation with Hezbollah; and (c) production,
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
4
preparation, transmission or storage of material impinging on public order, religious values,
public morals or privacy, through an information network or computer.2
20.
On 20 February 2018, Mr. Al-Sadeq was reportedly sentenced by the Specialized
Criminal Court to nine years of imprisonment. During the investigation period in the first
year of his arrest, Mr. Al-Sadeq was reportedly fined 5,000 Saudi riyals on the pretext that
this money would be used to set up barriers around the mosque of the town he lives in to
protect worshipers from terrorist attacks. During his sentencing in 2018, he was fined a
further 100,000 riyals in penalties.
21.
On 17 January 2021, upon appeal, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s sentence was reportedly increased
by an additional four years, giving him a total sentence of 13 years of imprisonment.
COVID-19-related restrictions
22.
According to the source, only Mr. Al-Sadeq’s wife and daughters were initially
allowed to visit him once a month at the Mabahith prison, and when the coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) crisis began, they were only allowed two visits, behind soundproof barriers,
before visits were cancelled and replaced by two telephone calls per month of 10 minutes’
duration.
23.
The source notes that since the spread of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s
family has not been allowed to visit him. The source notes that the authorities have still not
reversed this decision, despite the loosening of restrictions in the country. The source adds
that the prison authorities, allegedly using the pandemic as a pretext to further violate his
rights, only allow Mr. Al-Sadeq to contact his family by phone twice a month.
24.
Mr. Al-Sadeq has reportedly received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, but his
family does not know much about the health and sanitary conditions inside the prison, or
about the measures taken against the spread of the virus. They do not even know which
vaccine he received.
25.
Mr. Al-Sadeq remains at the Mabahith prison in Dammam where he is serving his 13-
year sentence.
Analysis of violations
26.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq was held in solitary confinement and
incommunicado detention during a period of investigation lasting three months at the
Mabahith prison, where he allegedly confessed under torture to the charges levelled against
him (see para. 31 below). His family could not visit him or contact him during that time,
which meant that they received no news about his situation.
27.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Sadeq was subjected to an unfair trial as he was
arrested without a warrant, he was not granted access to legal counsel to prepare for his trial,
he was interrogated in the absence of a lawyer, he was not allowed to present evidence in his
own defence, he was not brought promptly before a judge, he was only tried two years after
his arrest, and his confession extracted through torture was used against him at trial. The
source asserts that the Saudi authorities have therefore failed to observe 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. The source notes that because this violation of international norms, including of due
process and fair trial rights, is extensive and widespread, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s case is a deprivation
of liberty that falls under category III. Accordingly, the source submits that Mr. Al-Sadeq’s
detention is arbitrary and in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.
28.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested after the mayor of Tarout made
false allegations against him following an argument between the two in which Mr. Al-Sadeq
expressed his objection to the mayor’s verbal attack against the Shiite religious figure. The
source therefore holds that Mr. Al-Sadeq’s deprivation of liberty resulted from the exercise
2 With regard to the third charge, the source refers to art. 6 of the Anti-Cybercrime Law.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
5
of his right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression as enshrined in article 19 of the
Covenant and in articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Consequently, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s case also falls under category II.
29.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s arrest without a warrant occurred following
false accusations against him by the mayor of Tarout. Nevertheless, the source adds that the
charges brought against him in court were not related to the mayor’s accusations, and
involved different crimes such as loyalty to Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Additionally, he was questioned in relation to the accusations made by the mayor rather than
to the charges made against him. Consequently, the source submits that there is no legal basis
to justify Mr. Al-Sadeq’s arrest, which therefore falls under category I.
30.
As mentioned above, Mr. Al-Sadeq has reportedly been subjected to discrimination
in the form of verbal insults based on his affiliation to the Shiite sect. Although the source
was not able to retrieve more details on this matter, it submits that Mr. Al-Sadeq’s case is a
deprivation of liberty that falls under category V, given the circumstances and context in
which his arrest took place. To begin with, Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested and imprisoned in
Saudi Arabia, where Shiite Muslims have, for a long time, reportedly been the victims of
systematic discrimination and ill-treatment at the hands of the Government. Moreover, Mr.
Al-Sadeq was reportedly arrested for his activism after he had expressed his objection to the
mayor’s verbal attack against the Shiite religious figure and after the mayor had accused him
of insulting the King and the Government of Saudi Arabia. However, the charges made
against Mr. Al-Sadeq accused him of being affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Hezbollah – which, according to the source, are strongly defined by their affiliation to the
Shiite sect. The source submits that these exaggerated charges were used to target and repress
Mr. Al-Sadeq because he was also a prominent social activist in his community. Finally, Mr.
Al-Sadeq had previously been summoned and arrested for his religious activities, such as
participating in Shiite funeral processions in 1997 (see para. 8 above). The source asserts that
all this indicates a pattern of systematic targeting of Mr. Al-Sadeq for both his religious
identity and his social activism.
31.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Sadeq was allegedly subjected to such grave torture
and ill-treatment that he had to be transported unconscious to a hospital. Confessions
extracted under torture were then allegedly used against him at trial. The source adds that
none of these torture claims were investigated by authorities and the victim did not obtain
either redress or fair and adequate compensation. Consequently, the source submits that the
Saudi authorities have also violated their obligations under articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment and under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant.
Response from the Government
32.
On 22 March 2022, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested
the Government to provide, by 23 May 2022, detailed information about the current situation
of Mr. Al-Sadeq3 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, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working
Group called upon the Government of Saudi Arabia to ensure his physical and mental
integrity.
33.
On 19 May 2022, the Government submitted its reply, in which it reaffirmed its
willingness to cooperate with all United Nations human rights mechanisms and to respond to
their enquiries and requests. The Government submits that the source’s allegations that the
detention of Mr. Al-Sadeq is arbitrary under categories I, II, III and V are false and based on
spurious claims and false and fictitious information.
34.
The Government underscores that the communication it received comprises
unfounded allegations and conjecture based on uncorroborated information received from the
source. In its response, the Government explains the steps it has taken to investigate the
3 The Government refers to Mr. al-sadeq.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
6
allegations and to clarify all relevant facts, in line with its policy of cooperation with
international human rights procedures.
35.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested on the basis of a warrant
issued in accordance with article 4 of the Law on Combating Crimes of Terrorism and their
Financing, of 2013, and was detained, in accordance with article 2 of that law, in the
Mabahith prison in Dammam. The Government reports that his detention was extended
pursuant to article 5 of the same law, as he was charged with perpetrating a number of terrorist
acts, including:
(a)
Supporting a terrorist entity and financing terrorist entities and terrorist acts,
with sums amounting to 300,000 riyals – acts that are criminalized under the Law on
Combating Crimes of Terrorism and their Financing, of 2013, and the Anti-Money
Laundering Act;
(b)
Threatening the mayor of Tarout with violent assault;
(c)
Participating in the collection and distribution of funds within and outside
Saudi Arabia for the benefit of terrorist entities;
(d)
Producing and transmitting material that is prejudicial to public order – which
is criminalized and punishable under the Anti-Cybercrime Law.
36.
According to the Government, Mr. Al-Sadeq was informed of the grounds for his
arrest, in accordance with articles 36 (1), 101 (1) and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Once the investigation was completed, the Public Prosecution Service (the investigating
authority) concluded that the evidence was sufficient and brought charges against him under
article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Public Prosecution Service referred his
case to the competent court and Mr. Al-Sadeq was summoned to appear before it, in
accordance with article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 3 (b) and (c) of the
Public Prosecution Service statute. The Government explains that the Public Prosecution
Service is an independent body and is legally recognized as part of the judiciary.
37.
The Government contends that Mr. Al-Sadeq’s conditions of detention during the
investigations complied with the provisions of the Law on Combating Crimes of Terrorism
and their Financing, of 2013. His case was reportedly heard by the legally competent court,
the Specialized Criminal Court, in a fair and public trial.
38.
The charges were reportedly read to Mr. Al-Sadeq when he attended the court session,
in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, in accordance with article 160 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
39.
The court reportedly informed him that he was entitled to legal representation, in
accordance with articles 4 (1) and 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the State
would appoint one if he lacked the financial means, in accordance with article 139 of the
Code. Allegedly, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s request for the appointment of a number of representatives
and a lawyer was granted and his trial proceeded. In accordance with article 19 of the Legal
Profession Act, Mr. Al-Sadeq’s lawyer was reportedly granted the necessary facilities and
time to provide his client with the requisite legal assistance. The Government explains that,
in accordance with national law, including the statute of the Saudi Bar Association, lawyers
must be allowed to examine the case documents and attend the investigations, and none of
their requests may be refused without legal justification.
40.
The Government specifies that the judgment was delivered only after the court had
heard all of the parties’ statements, all defence pleas had been presented orally or in writing,
and no request to present additional information had been filed. Having examined all the
evidence collected, the court reportedly closed the proceedings in Mr. Al-Sadeq’s presence
and that of his lawyer, in accordance with articles 172 and 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In a preliminary ruling, Mr. Al-Sadeq was allegedly sentenced to nine years of
imprisonment starting from the date of his arrest, and to a travel ban for a similar period after
his prison sentence had been served.
41.
After the preliminary judgment was handed down, Mr. Al-Sadeq was informed of his
right to challenge the judgment within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment,
in accordance with article 192 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
7
42.
The Public Prosecutor and Mr. Al-Sadeq filed objections to the verdict and the first
instance judges confirmed their judgment. The entire file was then referred to the Appeal
Court, in accordance with article 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
43.
Following a number of sessions in the presence of the Public Prosecutor and the
defendant, and after having examined the case file and heard the statements of all parties, in
accordance with article 197 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appeal Court
overturned the initial judgment, and sentenced Mr. Al-Sadeq to 13 years’ imprisonment from
the date of his arrest and to a travel ban for a similar period after his prison sentence had been
served. The parties were informed of their right to file an appeal before the Supreme Court
within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, in accordance with article
198 of the Code.
44.
The Government reports that the parties failed to file an appeal before the Supreme
Court within the legally prescribed period. Their right to do so having lapsed in accordance
with article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgment became final and
enforceable. The Government notes that Mr. Al-Sadeq is currently serving his prison
sentence.
45.
According to the Government, Mr. Al-Sadeq has exercised his right to receive visits
and to contact his family and lawyer on a regular basis. The Government confirms the
source’s statement that this right was not affected by the spread of COVID-19. The
Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadeq is treated in a manner that respects his dignity and
safeguards all his rights, that he receives all necessary medical care, just like other detainees,
and that he is in good health.
46.
The Government explains that it was one of the first countries to adopt numerous
measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in prisons and detention centres. Such measures
included the promulgation of a royal decree on 14 Sha’ban A.H. 1441 (7 April A.D. 2020)
which was aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19 while guaranteeing the safety of all
persons within Saudi Arabia and prioritizing human health for everyone’s benefit.
47.
The Government also details the measures it has implemented, including its
vaccination policies, in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in prisons and places of
detention. The Government explains that family visits to inmates, cultural and sports
activities, and events involving inmates, have been reorganized.
48.
Turning to the analysis of the alleged violations, the Government submits that the
source’s analysis is based on unfounded allegations and conjecture that are not based on any
evidence.
49.
The Government denies the allegations that Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family was unable to visit
him or contact him during the investigation period and received no news about his situation.
The Government points out that the source itself acknowledged that the authorities permitted
Mr. Al-Sadeq’s family to visit him during the investigation.
50.
The Government also contests the allegations that Mr. Al-Sadeq was subjected to an
unfair trial insofar as he was arrested without a warrant, was not allowed to present evidence
in his defence and was not brought promptly before a judge, and his confession was extracted
through torture. The Government contends that all the measures taken against Mr. Al-Sadeq
were based on the domestic laws in force, which are consistent with international norms and
the human rights treaties ratified by Saudi Arabia.
51.
According to the Government, Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested on the basis of a warrant
issued by the competent authority, he was detained, and his detention was extended in
accordance with the law. He was reportedly informed of the grounds for his arrest and of the
charges filed against him, and he confessed of his own free will to the investigating authority
and confirmed his confessions to the charges filed against him before the judiciary, in
accordance with article 101 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Government submits
that he enjoyed full legal capacity and was not placed under duress.
52.
The Government alleges that the court undertook the necessary investigations to
assess the veracity of his claim that he had been subjected to torture and duress in order to
sign the statement. Reportedly, the court examined his medical reports and learned that no
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
8
impact of beating or self-harm had been found on his body, and that his vital functions were
stable. The court allegedly concluded that the allegations of torture were false and that he had
been admitted to the hospital’s anaesthetic department due to organic illnesses unrelated to
the allegations of torture. The report also allegedly showed that he had been admitted on a
second occasion owing to stomach pains and had received the appropriate treatment for his
health condition.
53.
According to the Government, the court found no proof of the validity of the
allegations, after conducting the necessary investigations and reviewing the medical reports
of the person concerned. The Government submits that, in accordance with the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the judge relies on the factual and presumptive evidence presented, the
arrest and search records, the testimonies of witnesses, and the cross-examinations and
statements heard during the judicial proceedings. The Government notes that the court is
empowered to hear witnesses, visit and inspect the scene of the incidents, and seek the
assistance of experts, including forensic physicians, in order to safeguard the rights of the
parties involved in the case. In accordance with article 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, if the accused confesses to the charges filed against him, the court shall hear his
statements in detail and discuss them with him. Evidence that is proven to have been obtained
through torture contravenes the provisions of sharia and relevant domestic legislation, and is
therefore null and void under article 187 of the same Code.
54.
The Government emphasizes that national legislation criminalizes torture and makes
it a punishable offence, and reiterates its commitment to the human rights treaties that it has
ratified, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which is deemed part of domestic legislation.4 The Government
contends that legal procedures undertaken against individuals charged with committing
serious offences comply with national laws as well as international legislation and norms,
including the right to due process and to a fair and public trial before an independent court.
55.
The Government proceeds to provide an account of the oversight and inspections
carried out by members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Human Rights Commission
and the National Society for Human Rights in all prisons and detention facilities in Saudi
Arabia. The Government notes that domestic legislation requires all State bodies to guarantee
justice for all, without discrimination, and that a number of mechanisms guarantee effective
human rights safeguards, in accordance with the applicable legal procedures.
56.
The Government submits that measures taken during the case were in line with
international human rights norms, including articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and articles 9
and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and therefore that there have been no
violations under category III.
57.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested on the basis of a warrant
issued by the competent authority charging him with having committed the terrorist crimes
listed above (see para. 35), and not for having exercised his right to freedom of thought,
opinion and expression. The Government points out that Mr. Al-Sadeq admitted before the
investigating authority that he had threatened to violently assault the mayor of Tarout, and
that his lawyer and himself refrained from denying this during the court hearings.
58.
The Government points out that its legislation prohibits the confinement, detention or
imprisonment of any person except in accordance with the provisions of the law in force,
making specific reference to articles 36 and 38 of the Basic Law of Governance and article 2
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to these provisions, no person may be
convicted and punished except on the basis of previously enacted sharia and statutory
provisions.
59.
The Government argues that the legal basis for the arrest of Mr. Al-Sadeq was the
charge of committing the terrorist crimes listed above as well as his threat to mount a violent
assault on the mayor of Tarout. The Government therefore contests that the deprivation of
liberty of Mr. Al-Sadeq is arbitrary under category I.
4 The Government specifically cites arts. 2, 36 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 28 of
the Imprisonment and Detention Act and art. 2 (8) of Royal Decree No. 43 of A.H. 1377 (A.D. 1958).
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
9
60.
The Government contests the allegations regarding category II, noting that its
domestic laws protect freedom of opinion and expression, and that every person is entitled to
exercise such rights unless doing so is deemed to breach or exceed the bounds or the norms
applicable to society or its members. The Government alleges that such restrictions are
consistent with relevant international norms, particularly the provisions of articles 18, 19 and
29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.
61.
The Government also contests the allegations under category V, reiterating that Mr.
Al-Sadeq was arrested on the charges of committing punishable terrorist crimes and
threatening to violently assault the mayor of Tarout, and that his arrest is unrelated to his
religious affiliations or social activism.
62.
The Government underscores that all citizens and residents are treated equally before
the law and exercise their rights without discrimination, in accordance with the domestic laws
in force. The Government notes that complaint mechanisms are available on an equal basis
for anyone alleging that their rights have been violated, in accordance with article 47 of the
Basic Law on Governance, and that a number of mechanisms exist to guarantee effective
human rights safeguards, which include the judiciary and governmental and non-
governmental human rights institutions.
63.
The Government contends that it fully complies with the principle of equality and that
all its Muslim citizens have the same rights and obligations on an equal footing and practise
their religious rites and beliefs freely, without discrimination, as part of a single and
harmonious national fabric. The Government recalls that discrimination is criminalized and
punishable under articles 8, 11, 12 and 26 of the Basic Law of Governance.
64.
Saudi Arabia reminds the Working Group of the Code of Conduct for Special
Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council adopted in resolution 5/2 of 18
June 2007.
Further comments from the source
65.
On 23 May 2022, the response of the Government was sent to the source for further
comments, which it provided on 3 June 2022.
66.
The source reiterates its allegations contained in its initial submission and argues that
the Government has failed to address many of these allegations.
67.
The source also underlines that the existence of domestic law prohibiting certain acts,
such as torture or ill-treatment, does not negate the possibility of such acts occurring. The
source contends that, in any case, it is not sufficient for the arrest and detention of Mr. Al-
Sadeq to comply with national law, as these must also be consistent with the relevant
provisions of international human rights law.
Discussion
68.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
69.
In determining whether Mr. Al-Sadeq’s detention was 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 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.5
Category I
70.
The source has argued that Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested on 1 October 2015 and that no
arrest warrant was presented to him nor reasons for his arrest given. While the Government,
in its reply, argues that the arrest was based on a warrant, it does not provide the date of the
arrest or explain when and how the arrest warrant was presented to Mr. Al-Sadeq. The
Government submits that the warrant was issued in accordance with article 4 of the Law on
5 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
10
Combating Crimes of Terrorism and their Financing, of 2013, which indicates that the issuing
authority would be the General Directorate of Investigation.
71.
The Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of liberty to
have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law which may authorize the arrest. The
authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through
an arrest warrant.6 Indeed, 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 and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation, under articles 3 and 9
respectively of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as under principles 2, 4
and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.7 Any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by,
or be subjected to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority under the law, whose
status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality
and independence, in accordance with principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
72.
In this regard, the Working Group must also recall its previous jurisprudence
concerning Saudi Arabia,8 in which it has consistently held that an arrest warrant, even
assuming that it has been issued by the Ministry of the Interior or by delegated organs such
as the General Directorate of Investigation, does not in itself fulfil the requirement that any
form of detention or imprisonment be ordered by, or be subject to, the effective control of a
judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest
possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence, in accordance with
principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group reiterates its view that the Ministry of the
Interior or its delegated organs cannot be considered as competent authorities in this respect.
The Working Group once again underlines that any deprivation of liberty without a valid
arrest warrant issued by a competent, independent and impartial authority with oversight
exercised by the judicial authority, is arbitrary and lacks legal basis.
73.
In the present case, the Working Group considers that Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested
without an arrest warrant being presented to him (even if such had been issued); nor was he
provided promptly with the reasons for his arrest. The Working Group therefore concludes
that a breach of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took place.9
74.
The source has also alleged that following his arrest, Mr. Al-Sadeq was held
incommunicado and in solitary confinement for three months during the investigation of his
case. Although this very serious allegation was put to the Government, it chose not to provide
a specific response. The source also has specified that Mr. Al-Sadeq was not brought before
a judicial authority until the start of his trial – another allegation that the Government has
chosen not to address.
75.
The Working Group notes with concern that it has received numerous complaints
about prolonged incommunicado detention in Saudi Arabia of Saudi citizens and foreign
nationals by the General Directorate of Investigation – the Ministry of the Interior’s domestic
intelligence service doubling as a secret police agency, which has been nearly ubiquitous in
the cases referred to the Working Group from Saudi Arabia for nearly three decades, since
appearing for the first time in a decision by the Working Group at its eighth session, in 1993.10
6 See, for example, opinions No. 46/2017, No. 66/2017, No. 75/2017, No. 93/2017, No. 35/2018 and
No. 79/2018.
7 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. See also art. 14 (1)
of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
8 See, for example, opinions No. 93/2017, No. 10/2018 and No. 86/2020.
9 Opinions No. 10/2015, para. 34; and No. 46/2019, para. 51.
10 The Working Group found the deprivation of liberty of the person(s) concerned to be arbitrary in its
decisions No. 60/1993, No. 19/1995 and No. 48/1995 and in its 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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
11
76.
The Working Group notes that practices of incommunicado detention effectively
place the victims outside the protection of the law and deprive them of any legal safeguards:
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
77.
Indeed, such deprivation of liberty, entailing a refusal to disclose the fate or
whereabouts or to acknowledge detention, lacks any valid legal basis and is inherently
arbitrary as it places the person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.12 The Working Group thus finds a further breach
of Mr. Al-Sadeq’s rights under articles 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
78.
Moreover, as the Working Group has consistently argued, holding persons
incommunicado violates their right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court.13
The Working Group notes that Mr. Al-Sadeq was not brought promptly before a judge or
afforded the right to take proceedings before a court so that it might decide without delay on
the lawfulness of his detention. In fact, he was not brought before a judicial authority until
the start of his trial some two years after his arrest, and the Working Group observes that the
Government has chosen not to provide either the date of his arrest or the start date of his trial.
79.
The Working Group considers that judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental
safeguard of personal liberty14 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.
Given that Mr. Al-Sadeq 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 also violated.
80.
Finally, the Working Group observes that Mr. Al-Sadeq was convicted and sentenced
on the basis of, inter alia, article 6 of the Anti-Cybercrime Law, which is confirmed by the
Government.
81.
In this regard, the Working Group recalls its previous jurisprudence concerning this
provision of Saudi law, in which it found article 6 to be formulated in vague and broad terms
in breach of the principle of lex certa, violating the due process of law.15 The Working Group
reiterates that the principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient
precision so that individuals may have access to and understand the law, and regulate their
conduct accordingly.16
82.
The Working Group further notes that laws that are vaguely and broadly worded may
have a deterrent effect on the exercise of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association,
participation in political and public affairs, equality and non-discrimination, and protection
of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, as they have the potential
for abuse, including the arbitrary deprivation of liberty.17 Consequently, the Working Group
finds that the detention and sentencing of Mr. Al-Sadeq under the lèse-majesté provisions in
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 and No. 33/2020. The
Working Group did not find the detention of the person concerned to be arbitrary in opinion No.
44/2006, and it filed the case after the release of the detainee(s) in decision No. 37/1993 and opinions
No. 22/2005 and No. 18/2014.
11 A/HRC/16/47, para. 54.
12 See the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and opinions No.
56/2019 and No. 33/2020, for example.
13 See, for example, opinions No. 28/2016, No. 79/2017, No. 93/2017 and No. 33/2020.
14 See 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 (A/HRC/30/37), para. 3.
15 Opinions No. 86/2020, para. 67; No. 71/2019, para. 73; and No. 10/2018, para. 52.
16 See, for example, opinion No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101. See also opinion No. 62/2018, paras. 57–59.
17 Opinion No. 10/2018, para. 55.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
12
article 6 (1) of the Anti-Cybercrime Law expressly violates international human rights law
and as such lacks legal basis.18
83.
Noting all the above, the Working Group considers that Mr. Al-Sadeq’s arrest and
detention violate articles 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lack
a legal basis, and are thus arbitrary, falling under category I.
Category II
84.
The source argues that the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Al-Sadeq resulted
from his peaceful exercise of rights under articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The Government denies this, submitting that everyone’s rights to freedom of
expression and assembly are protected in Saudi Arabia and that Mr. Al-Sadeq was arrested
and convicted purely for a number of terrorism crimes (see para. 35 above). However, the
Working Group observes that while the Government has provided a list of these alleged
crimes, it has not submitted any information as to what actions by Mr. Al-Sadeq may have
been conceived as amounting to these crimes. Moreover, the Government has chosen not to
address the source’s submissions that Mr. Al-Sadeq had been arrested before, in 1997 and
2008, for peaceful protests.
85.
The Working Group therefore considers that the Government has not met the burden
of proof, and recalls that the present case is yet another case where it has been asked to
examine deprivation of liberty by the Government under the provisions of the Anti-
Cybercrime Law.19 The individuals in these prior cases, like Mr. Al-Sadeq in the current one,
were deprived of their liberty for peaceful expression of their views. For this reason, the
Working Group has in the past found prosecution and imprisonment under the Anti-
Cybercrime Law, as well as under the counter-terrorism law, to be arbitrary when they result
from the legitimate exercise of fundamental human rights.20
86.
The Working Group recalls that article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights provides that the only legitimate limitations to the exercise of one’s rights and
freedoms must be for the purposes of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and
freedoms of others and meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the
general welfare in a democratic society. The Working Group notes the failure of the
Government to explain how actions by Mr. Al-Sadeq required the imposition of any
restrictions under the justifications listed in article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. In fact, the Government has provided no account of any actions by Mr. Al-
Sadeq that may have amounted to a criminal act.
87.
The Working Group is therefore of the opinion that the deprivation of liberty of Mr.
Al-Sadeq is arbitrary, falling within category II, as it violates articles 18 and 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Category III
88.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al-Sadeq is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken place.
However, the trials did take place, and Mr. Al-Sadeq received a lengthy term of imprisonment
of 13 years. Therefore, the Working Group will now consider whether the alleged violations
of the right to a fair trial and due process were of such gravity as to give his deprivation of
liberty an arbitrary character, falling under category III.
89.
The source has alleged that Mr. Al-Sadeq was denied legal assistance for the first two
years of his detention. The source also alleges that he was interrogated during this time, in
absence of a lawyer. Although the Government has argued that Mr. Al-Sadeq was allowed to
appoint a lawyer, it has specified that this was when the trial proceedings started, but it has
18 Opinion No. 71/2019, para. 75.
19 See, for example, opinions No. 63/2017, No. 93/2017, No. 68/2018, No. 10/2018, No. 26/2019 and
No. 71/2019.
20 Opinions No. 63/2017, paras. 54–63; and No. 71/2019, para. 82.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
13
failed to address the allegations that access to a lawyer was denied prior to the start of the
trial.
90.
The Working Group therefore considers the source’s allegations as credible and finds
that the absence of legal counsel for Mr. Al-Sadeq prior to the start of his trial violated his
rights to legal assistance as part of his right to a fair trial and due process under articles 10
and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 17 and 18 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
91.
Furthermore, the Working Group notes with grave concern the allegations of the
treatment Mr. Al-Sadeq was subjected to, which the source submits amounted to torture and
was directed at extracting a confession. The Working Group notes that the Government has
merely stated that these allegations were found to be untrue, arguing that the court ordered
an investigation and examined medical reports which showed “no impact of beating or self-
harm” on his body. However, the Working Group observes that there is no evidence that an
independent medical examination was ordered, nor that such examination complied with the
criteria set out in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). The
Government has also chosen not to address the submission that Mr. Al-Sadeq was
unconscious for a number of days and was denied access to other evidence that he had
requested so that he could show the treatment he had received, and neither has the
Government addressed the submissions concerning sectarian abuse of Mr. Al-Sadeq.
92.
Moreover, the Working Group has already established that Mr. Al-Sadeq was
interrogated repeatedly in the absence of legal counsel and while in incommunicado
detention. As the Working Group has stated before, cconfessions made in the absence of legal
representation are not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.21 Furthermore, the
admission into evidence of a statement allegedly obtained through torture or ill-treatment
renders the entire proceedings unfair, regardless of whether other evidence was available to
support the verdict.22 The burden is on the Government to prove that statements were given
freely, but in this case it has merely cited its domestic legislation.
93.
The Working Group therefore finds a violation of Mr. Al-Sadeq’s fundamental fair
trial rights, including the right to be presumed innocent and the right not to confess guilt
under articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group
also notes that the use of a confession extracted through ill-treatment that is tantamount if not
equivalent to torture may also constitute a violation by Saudi Arabia of its international
obligation under article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Furthermore, the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment specifically prohibits taking
undue advantage of the situation of detention to compel confession or incriminating
statements (see principle 21). The Working Group refers the present case to the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for
appropriate action. The Working Group also calls upon the Government to adhere to the
Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (the
Méndez Principles).23
94.
Furthermore, the Working Group observes that Mr. Al-Sadeq was tried by the
Specialized Criminal Court, as submitted by the source and confirmed by the Government.
In this regard, the Working Group must recall its earlier jurisprudence in which it has
established that this court is insufficiently independent of the Ministry of the Interior.24 The
Working Group notes that the Specialized Criminal Court, which tried, convicted and
sentenced Mr. Al-Sadeq, is a court of exception with jurisdiction over terrorism cases, which
is not composed of independent judges but of a panel appointed by the Ministry of the
21 A/HRC/45/16, para. 53. See also opinions No. 41/2020, para. 70; No. 73/2019, para. 91; No. 59/2019,
para. 70; No. 14/2019, para. 71; and No. 1/2014, para. 22; and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e).
22 Opinions No. 73/2019, para. 91; No. 59/2019, para. 70; No. 32/2019, para. 43; No. 52/2018, para. 79
(i); No. 34/2015, para. 28; and No. 43/2012, para. 51.
23 A/HRC/51/29, paras. 50–55.
24 Opinion No. 10/2018, para. 73.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
14
Interior. The Committee against Torture has expressed concern that this court is insufficiently
independent of the Ministry of the Interior.25 The Working Group further notes the assessment
of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism that the recent power realignment and governmental
reorganization has placed the Ministry’s investigatory powers directly under the authority of
the Public Prosecution and the Presidency of State Security, both of which report directly to
the King, and that concerns regarding the lack of independence of the Specialized Criminal
Court therefore remain undiminished.26
95.
The Working Group has already stated previously 27 that it considers that the
Specialized Criminal Court cannot be considered an independent and impartial tribunal
replete with the presumption of innocence and guarantees necessary for defence, and remains
of the same view in the present case. The trial before the Court thus contravened article 10
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group refers the present case
to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, for appropriate action.
96.
Given all of the above considerations, the Working Group concludes that the
violations of Mr. Al-Sadeq’s right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give
his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, and that the case therefore falls under
category III.
Category V
97.
The Working Group will now examine whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al-
Sadeq was arbitrary under category V, as submitted by the source. In this regard, the Working
Group first notes the Government’s submission that everyone in Saudi Arabia is treated
equally and that no discrimination is permitted in law, citing numerous legal provisions.
98.
The Working Group notes that the source has presented a credible case, spanning
decades, showing a discriminatory attitude by the Saudi authorities against Mr. Al-Sadeq as
a prominent social activist, arrested and released without charge in 1997 and 2008 following
protests – allegations which the Government has chosen not to address. The Working Group
also notes the uncontested submissions regarding the verbal, sectarian abuse Mr. Al-Sadeq
received while in custody, all related to his affiliation with the Shiite sect.
99.
The Working Group notes that the views and convictions of Mr. Al-Sadeq are clearly
at the centre of the present case and that the authorities have displayed an attitude towards
him that can only be characterized as discriminatory. Indeed, he has been the target of
persecution, and there is no explanation for this other than his exercise of the right to express
such views and convictions.
100.
Consequently, the Working Group concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al-
Sadeq violated articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the grounds
of discrimination based on religion and national origin, making his detention arbitrary under
category V. The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief.
Concluding remarks
101.
The Working Group is seriously disturbed at the allegations that the family of Mr. Al-
Sadeq was not informed of his arrest and subsequently was allowed very limited contact with
him, allegedly due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Government has submitted extensive
explanations concerning the measures it adopted to curb the spread of COVID-19, including
in places of detention, but in regard to the case of Mr. Al-Sadeq merely stated that family had
been permitted visits, without providing any further details.
102.
While the Working Group appreciates the challenges that the whole world faces
regarding the spread of COVID-19, this must never be used as an excuse to deny basic rights.
25 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and Corr.1, para. 17.
26 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 47.
27 See, for example, opinions No. 71/2019, para. 44; No. 56/2019, para. 86; No. 26/2019, para. 102; and
No. 22/2019, para. 74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
15
Regular and meaningful family contact is an essential safeguard for the rights of detainees,
and reducing this to short phone calls twice a month is incompatible with principle 19 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
103.
In its 31-year history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of its
international human rights obligations in over 65 cases.28 The Working Group reiterates its
concern that this indicates a systemic problem with 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.29
104.
The Working Group welcomes the voluntary pledges pursuant to General Assembly
resolution 60/251 concerning the Human Rights Council by Saudi Arabia.30 In particular, the
Working Group lauds the expressed willingness of the Government to cooperate with the
Human Rights Council and its various mechanisms including the special procedures. In the
light of this, the Working Group would welcome the opportunity, at the earliest convenience
to the Government, 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 relating
to instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Disposition
105.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Husain bin Abdulla bin Yusuf al-Sadeq, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
106.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Al-Sadeq without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
107.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al-Sadeq immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law. In the current context of the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the
threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to
take urgent action to ensure the immediate unconditional release of Mr. Al-Sadeq.
108.
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-
Sadeq and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
28 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 and No. 33/2020.
29 A/HRC/13/42, para. 30; and opinions No. 1/2011, para. 21; No. 37/2011, para. 15; No. 38/2011, para.
16; No. 39/2011, para. 17; No. 4/2012, para. 26; No. 38/2012, para. 33; No. 47/2012, paras. 19 and
22; No. 50/2012, para. 27; No. 60/2012, para. 21; No. 9/2013, para. 40; No. 34/2013, paras. 31, 33
and 35; No. 35/2013, paras. 33, 35 and 37; No. 36/2013, paras. 32, 34 and 36; No. 48/2013, para. 14;
No. 22/2014, para. 25; No. 27/2014, para. 32; No. 34/2014, para. 34; No. 35/2014, para. 19; No.
36/2014, para. 21; No. 44/2016, para. 37; No. 60/2016, para. 27; No. 32/2017, para. 40; No. 33/2017,
para. 102; No. 36/2017, para. 110; No. 51/2017, para. 57; and No. 56/2017, para. 72.
30 See A/75/377.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/62
16
109.
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, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, for appropriate action.
110.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
111.
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-Sadeq has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al-Sadeq;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Al-
Sadeq’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.
112.
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.
113.
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.
114.
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.31
[Adopted on 2 September 2022]
31 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.