Opinion; Subjects: UNITED STATES, PAKISTAN, ROMANIA, 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.23-09593 (E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-sixth session, 27 March–5 April 2023
Opinion No. 18/2023 concerning Mr. Mustafa Faraj Muhammad
Masud al-Jadid al-Uzaybi (United States of America, Pakistan and
Romania)
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 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 13 December 2022 the Working Group
transmitted to the Governments of the Pakistan, Romania and the United States of America
a communication concerning Mr. Mustafa Faraj Muhammad Masud al-Jadid al-Uzaybi. The
Governments of the United States and Pakistan did not provide timely responses. On 10
February 2023, the Government of Romania requested a one-month extension to respond,
which was granted. Romania submitted its response on 13 March 2023. All States are parties
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,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
General Assembly
Distr.: General
2 June 2023
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
2
GE.23-09593
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.
Mr. Mustafa Faraj Muhammad Masud al-Jadid al-Uzaybi is a Libyan national, born
in Tarhuna, Libya, on 1 November 1970.
5.
According to the information received, Mr. al-Uzaybi was apprehended on 2 May
2005, in north Peshawar, Pakistan, by Pakistani Special Forces, without any arrest mandate.
Initially held in Pakistani detention, he was reportedly rendered by the Pakistani authorities,
outside any lawful process of extradition or expulsion, to the Central Intelligence Agency
between 6 and 7 May 2005.
6.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was taken to Central Intelligence Agency detention site orange, in
Afghanistan, between 24 and 25 May 2005, and then almost immediately rendered onwards
to another site in Bucharest.
7.
In Romania, he was subjected to all of the Central Intelligence Agency enhanced
interrogation techniques. He was subjected to additional questioning at least until September
2005. Authorities of the United States reportedly subjected him to: (a) dietary manipulation;
(b) nudity; (c) attention grasp; (d) walling; (e) facial hold; (f) facial slap or insult slap; (g)
abdominal slap; (h) cramped confinement; (i) wall standing; (j) stress positions; (k) water
dousing; and (l) sleep deprivation (more than 48 hours). In total, Mr. al-Uzaybi was detained
and tortured by agents of the Central Intelligence Agency for over 460 days before being
transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been detained for over 17 years.
8.
According to the source, the use of the combination of all enhanced interrogation
techniques used on Mr. al-Uzaybi was approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency upon his arrival in Romania. The torture did not stop when he started complaining
of a loss of hearing, continuing until his interrogators were convinced that he was not
withholding information.
9.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was forced to make self-incriminating statements. He was considered
a “high-value detainee”, as he was seen as likely to pose a threat to the United States or its
allies. As a high-value detainee, he was systematically subjected to enhanced interrogation
techniques at black sites, as well as to stricter security measures than the rest of detainees in
Guantanamo Bay. Meetings with detainees at Guantanamo Bay are regulated by strict
security procedures.
10.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was most probably held at the black site in Romania until November
2005. He was subsequently transferred to another black site, before being taken to
Afghanistan. He was held at one of the black sites in Afghanistan between March and
September 2006, before being handed over to the United States Department of Defense and
transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
11.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was held in detention at black sites for at least one year and a half, from
his capture in May 2005 to September 2006, during which time he was reportedly subjected
to enforced disappearance and torture. On 18 November 2005 and 18 April 2006, the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reportedly requested the United States
authorities for information on Mr. al-Uzaybi’s fate and whereabouts. Those questions went
unanswered.
12.
Reportedly, Mr. al-Uzaybi’s whereabouts remained unknown at least until 2007, when
he was able to send a letter to his family. After that one letter, he was allowed a monitored
call with relatives in 2015, although this was an exchange of recorded and monitored time-
delayed messages.
13.
Although Mr. al-Uzaybi is currently held under the jurisdiction of the United States,
it is argued that Pakistan and Romania are jointly responsible for his arbitrary arrest, enforced
disappearance and torture. Allegedly, the Governments of these countries knowingly
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
3
cooperated with the authorities of the United States in arresting and maintaining him outside
the protection of the law, subjecting him to enforced disappearance and torture.
14.
According to medical reports, Mr. al-Uzaybi has developed several health problems
as a result of the torture, including severe hearing loss in both ears, traumatic brain damage,
memory loss, word-finding problems, spinal injuries, sleep disruption, complex post-
traumatic stress disorder and other chronic medical problems. His condition has worsened as
no adequate medical treatment or rehabilitation has ever been provided to mitigate the
consequences of his torture.
Case review by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal
15.
Reportedly, on 8 February 2007, Mr. al-Uzaybi was presented for the first time to the
United States Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The Review Tribunal is integrated by
military officers; it is not a judicial body and does not comply with due process requirements.
In the case of Mr. al-Uzaybi, it was exclusively composed of military personnel.
16.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was assigned a “personal representative”, a military official without
legal qualifications who did not hold the status or privileges of an attorney. Furthermore, the
only basis for the decision of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, as provided to the
personal representative Mr. al-Uzaybi, consisted of a list of allegations that he was not able
to disprove, based on statements made by unknown sources.
17.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was reportedly classified as an “enemy combatant” by the Combatant
Status Review Tribunal following a non-adversarial process. It was not possible to call
witnesses, nor has he been able to meaningfully challenge the final decision of the Review
Tribunal before an independent and impartial judicial authority.
Case review by the Guantanamo Review Task Force
18.
The source reports that, pursuant to an Executive Order of 22 January 2009, signed
by the President of the United States, an inter-agency “review task force” was set up to review
the status of all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It was composed exclusively of members
of executive security agencies. Decisions were reached by the unanimous agreement of the
agencies.
19.
The review of the task force cannot be considered fair or transparent, since most of
the information was classified and statements were obtained by the Central Intelligence
Agency using “enhanced interrogation techniques”, including in the present case. In addition,
the process, which had to be completed within 30 days, reportedly did not provide any
opportunity for detainees to be heard or to meaningfully challenge the decisions, which were
not subjected to any form of appeal or judicial review.
20.
The source states that, on 10 September 2008, the task force recommended that Mr.
al-Uzaybi be prosecuted. However, he has never been charged nor prosecuted.
Denial of Mr. al-Uzaybi’s right to challenge the legality of his detention.
21.
Two years after he was brought to Guantanamo Bay, a habeas corpus counsel was
assigned to represent Mr. al-Uzaybi. On 11 May 2009, a habeas corpus petition was filed on
his behalf, to challenge the legality of his detention before the federal district court for the
District of Columbia. This petition is still pending, however, more than 13 years after the
initial submission, which exceeds any definition of a reasonable length of time.
22.
Reportedly, almost 20 years after his arrest, the United States authorities have yet to
produce a witness or incriminating material evidence to support Mr. al-Uzaybi’s continued
detention.
Case review by the Periodic Review Board
23.
In 2011, the Periodic Review Board, an administrative inter-agency board composed
exclusively of members of executive security agencies, was established to review whether
the continued detention of particular individuals at Guantanamo Bay remains necessary for
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
4
GE.23-09593
the security of the United States.2 The process was not meant to provide such individuals the
possibility of challenging the legality of their continued detention.
Periodic Review Board: initial review (2016)
24.
The initial review of the Periodic Review Board on the case of Mr. al-Uzaybi
reportedly took place on 16 August 2016, without his presence. Instead, an opening statement
read by his personal representatives indicated that he wanted to return to his family. No
mention was made of the conditions under which Mr. al-Uzaybi was captured, secretly
detained and tortured to force him to self-incriminate.
25.
On 16 September 2016, the Periodic Review Board determined that the continued
detention of Mr. al-Uzaybi remained necessary to protect the United States from a continuing
significant threat, while adding that it was unable to assess his credibility owing to his
decision not to participate in the hearing.
Periodic Review Board: second review (2017)
26.
A second review by the Periodic Review Board was scheduled in February 2017,
based on vaguely described allegations and without providing any meaningful opportunity
for Mr. al-Uzaybi to challenge them.
Periodic Review Board: third and last review (2022)
27.
In June 2022, the Periodic Review Board reportedly started a third review of Mr. al-
Uzaybi’s case, based on a brief summary of the allegations.
28.
A letter from his private counsel submitted to the Periodic Review Board exposed the
suffering he was subjected to. Furthermore, it highlighted that over the 17 years of his
detention in Guantanamo, allegations against Mr. al-Uzaybi had become fewer and that there
was no stated intention to prosecute him. Sections of the letter related to torture and other
mistreatment, as well as their adverse consequences, were allegedly redacted.
29.
During the hearing, Mr. al-Uzaybi denied having been a continuing threat to the
United States. He pleaded for his release so that he could obtain proper health care and vowed
to respect all conditions imposed if released.
30.
On 23 August 2022, the Periodic Review Board approved his continued detention. It
did not recommend his release even though the allegations against him had become weaker
and fewer over the years. Mr. al-Uzaybi’s detention was allegedly approved by the Board on
the grounds of a 17-year-old uncorroborated allegation that he may have been associated with
Al-Qaida. Furthermore, the Periodic Review Board was reportedly motivated in making its
decision by Mr. al-Uzaybi’s exercise of his right to remain silent and the allegation that he
had no plans for reintegration.
Conditions of detention
31.
The source claims that the current situation of Mr. al-Uzaybi shows that he has no
reasonable hope of being released, putting him in a situation of indefinite detention, in
inhumane conditions, which is alleged to amount to torture.
32.
The source also claims that Mr. al-Uzaybi’s hearing loss was caused by trauma
inflicted under torture at the Central Intelligence Agency black site in Romania. Moreover,
access to medical files is denied to external medical staff and information on the treatment
of detainees is considered classified.
33.
Whereas other detainees are allowed to receive real-time Skype calls with their
families, Mr. al-Uzaybi does not because he is considered to be a high-value detainee and is
thus subjected to stricter measures. Members of his family who can travel to the ICRC call
site can see him on monitors during such exchanges. Each side records a message that is
transmitted to the other side to respond to in another recorded message.
2 Pursuant to Executive Order 13567 of 7 March 2011.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
5
34.
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s hearing disability prevents him from understanding most of his
family’s messages.
35.
Reportedly, Mr. al-Uzaybi does not have access to the outside world except for his
lawyers and ICRC. In addition, his hearing disability also causes miscommunications with
guards in the prison who, in turn, punish him for what they perceive as a lack of cooperation.
He suffers from insecurity and isolates himself. This, in combination with chronic pain,
has led to severe depression. His hearing disability, including the pain and depression he
suffers, from have affected his ability to effectively fight for his release.
Analysis of violations
36.
The source states that international human rights law is applicable in times of conflict,
regardless of its classification.
37.
According to the source, the treatment of Mr. al-Uzaybi by the United States violates
articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.
Category I
Arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial rendition by Pakistan
38.
The source recalls that Mr. al-Uzaybi was arrested by Pakistani military forces on 2
May 2005 without any warrant or judicial process. There was no indication that he might
have been caught in a situation of flagrante delicto.
39.
Pakistani authorities reportedly must have known that, if rendered to the Central
Intelligence Agency, Mr. al-Uzaybi would be subjected to torture.
Extrajudicial rendition and enforced disappearance
40.
Between 24 and 28 May 2005, Mr. al-Uzaybi was transported by the Central
Intelligence Agency in private planes operated by several companies from detention site
orange in Afghanistan to the other black site in Bucharest.
41.
From the onset of his arrest, to 2007, when he was allowed to contact his family for
the first time, Mr. al-Uzaybi was allegedly subjected to enforced disappearance.
42.
The responsibility for his enforced disappearance and torture rests with the forces of
the United States, as well as with the Government of Romania for the time he spent in the
black site in Romania where he was subjected to all forms of enhanced interrogation
techniques.
43.
The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study
confirms that “political leaders of host countries were generally informed of [the sites’]
existence”. 3 The Council of Europe’s investigation into secret detention and rendition
concluded that key arrangements for the clandestine operations of the Central Intelligence
Agency were secured on a bilateral level with the United States by a number of countries,
including Romania. Such agreements provided that host Governments “agreed to provide the
premises in which these facilities were established, the highest degrees of physical security
and secrecy, and steadfast guarantees of non-interference”.4
Transfer to Guantanamo Bay and the right to challenge the legality of the detention
44.
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s detention allegedly continued to lack a legal basis after his transfer to
Guantanamo Bay from the Central Intelligence Agency to military custody, and he has never
3 United States, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence
Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program, 9 December 2014 (redacted), findings and
conclusions, pp. 7 and 16–17.
4 Council of Europe, “Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe
member States: second report, 11 June 2007”, paras. 112–119.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
6
GE.23-09593
been provided with any meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention and
his qualification as an “enemy combatant”.
45.
At the hearing on his case before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Mr. al-
Uzaybi was not assisted by a lawyer but by a personal representative provided by the United
States Government who did not fulfil the role of an attorney and did not have the same
privileges.
46.
The source recalls that, according to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War, the competent authority to determine prisoner-of-war status is not the
executive power but the judicial power.
47.
In 2014, the Periodic Review Board, led by military officers, administratively
reviewed Mr. al-Uzaybi’s detention for the first time. He did not, however, participate in the
first two reviews since he was not assisted by legal counsel. Only after he was allowed access
to a lawyer, in June 2022, did he attend the third review. Nevertheless, he was still not
informed of the charges against him.
48.
The processes before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and the Periodic Review
Board were administrative rather than judicial. Detainees were not provided with a lawyer
during hearings and the decisions were subject to limited judicial review only, as the most
that a reviewing court may do is to order reconsideration of a decision, not release.5
Indefinite detention without charges
49.
At present, almost 20 years after his arrest, Mr. al-Uzaybi still has not been charged,
nor has he been able to meaningfully challenge his detention. Furthermore, he was deprived
of his liberty without an effective opportunity to be promptly heard by a judicial authority.
50.
The habeas corpus writ submitted by his counsel on 11 May 2009 before the federal
district court for the District of Columbia remains pending.
51.
According to the source, the domestic legal basis used by the United States to detain
Mr. al-Uzaybi, namely the law on Authorization for Use of Military Force, does not conform
to human rights law and international humanitarian law.
52.
The source claims that the indefinite detention of Mr. al-Uzaybi goes beyond a
minimally reasonable period, which constitutes a violation of international human rights law
and constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The motivation for Mr. al-
Uzaybi’s detention was reportedly to obtain information by exposing him to torture.
Absence of legal justification for the continued detention
53.
The source highlights that even the contended argument that Mr. al-Uzaybi’s
continuous detention without trial is justified under the law on Authorization for Use of
Military Force as an “enemy combatant” no longer applies.
54.
The Government of the United States has been justifying his continuous and indefinite
detention on the sole rationale that “enemy combatants” could be detained without charges
on the basis of the law of war in order to prevent their return to the battlefield, until the end
of hostilities.
55.
However, the source recalls that the United States decided to withdraw its troops from
Afghanistan and signed an agreement putting an end to hostilities. Therefore, even under the
United States doctrine of continued law-of-war detention, the indefinite detention of Mr. al-
Uzaybi is void of legal basis.
56.
After its last review, the Periodic Review Board decided that continued law-of-war
detention of the detainee remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat
to the security of the United States and recalled Mr. al-Uzaybi’s alleged extensive and lengthy
history with Al-Qaida, including leadership roles, without being able to prove such claims
and to charge him accordingly, after nearly 20 years of detention.
5 A/HRC/6/17/Add.3, para. 13.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
7
57.
The Periodic Review Board also justified its decision based on the fact that Mr. al-
Uzaybi refused to answer questions regarding his past activities, in what appeared to be a
form of reprisal for his use of his right to remain silent.
58.
In order to reach its decision, the Periodic Review Board also considered Mr. al-
Uzaybi’s lack of a predetermined plan for employment and support, post-release. The source
asserts that even had the Review Board found that the continued detention of Mr. al-Uzaybi’s
was no longer justified on the basis of national security concerns, it would still have continued
his detention. Nevertheless, Mr. al-Uzaybi’s limited prospects for employment are largely
due to the consequences of the torture he suffered while in the custody of the Central
Intelligence Agency and the denial of medical care for two decades.
Category III
59.
The source submits that, in this case, the disregard for international fair trial standards
is of such gravity as to render Mr. al-Uzaybi’s deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category
III.
The right to defence
60.
Reportedly, as Mr. al-Uzaybi did not have a lawyer, he could not have participated in
the reviews of his detention in a meaningful way. Furthermore, he was not brought before a
competent and independent judicial authority and his detention was only subjected to
administrative review processes, namely those conducted by the Combatant Status Review
Tribunal and the Periodic Review Board. He never had access to his files.
61.
The first time Mr. al-Uzaybi met with a lawyer was in 2008, when he was appointed
a habeas corpus counsel who was granted limited access to his files. He has not been able to
access his medical records, since they contain mentions of the torture he was subjected to.
Moreover, meetings between detainees and their counsel are monitored by video, which
cannot guarantee their confidential character.
62.
Furthermore, the only documents ever provided to Mr. al-Uzaybi were mere
summaries of vaguely described allegations, Additionally, no material evidence has been
provided nor mentioned in the summaries to support the allegations against him.
63.
Consequently, it is alleged that Mr. al-Uzaybi never had the opportunity to effectively
dispute arguments or to discuss evidence adduced by the accusation, in violation of his right
to equal access and equality of arms.
Use of ex parte evidence
64.
The source claims that, in the case of Mr. al-Uzaybi, there was a systematic use of ex
parte evidence, in violation of fair trial rules and equality of arms.
65.
The source claims that these allegations are, in fact, confessions extracted under
torture, which must be excluded from the debate since they cannot be considered as evidence
under articles 14 and 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All of the allegations made against Mr. al-Uzaybi
appear to solely rest on statements of other high-value detainees who were subjected to
torture. Apart from the above, there is no material evidence that establishes an association of
Mr. al-Uzaybi with Al-Qaida.
Violations of pretrial guarantees
66.
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s detention was reviewed by two non-judicial bodies that fail to satisfy
the requirements and guarantees set out in article 14 of the Covenant. The source claims that
none of these reviews met minimal requirements of due process and procedural standards,
such as the exclusion of coerced statements and hearsay evidence, nor do they allow detainees
to cross-examine witnesses or to bring forward exculpatory statements.
67.
Detainees eligible for a review before the Periodic Review Board are not allowed to
access exculpatory documents because they are classified. Only summaries and substitutes
of portions of the dossier considered by the Review Board are available. Detainees can
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
8
GE.23-09593
present written or oral statements, introduce relevant information, answer questions posed by
the Review Board and call “reasonably available” witnesses.
68.
Furthermore, detainees may be assisted by legal counsel but they cannot meet in
private nor communicate in conditions that fully respect confidentiality.
69.
The decisions of the Periodic Review Board are not subject to judicial review and the
Review Board refuses to exclude evidence produced by torture unless all participating
agencies concur that interrogators engaged in torture.
70.
The source claims that Mr. al-Uzaybi is not able to provide any evidence from
witnesses, including from members of his family, owing to the lack of protection for
witnesses against arrest or prosecution by the United States.
Use of self-incriminating evidence obtained under torture
71.
Mr. al-Uzaybi allegedly was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques at black
sites and was forced to make self-incriminating statements, in violation of his right to be
presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant and his right not to be compelled to
confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g).
Violation of the right to be tried promptly
72.
The source highlights that “the detention of persons for a period of several years
without charge fundamentally undermines the right of fair trial”. 6 Mr. al-Uzaybi has
reportedly been deprived of his liberty for 17 years at Guantanamo Bay with no indication of
when he will be brought to trial.
73.
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s case related to a writ of habeas corpus is still pending after more than
a decade.
Category V
Discrimination based on religion and national origin
74.
The source highlights that all detainees brought to Guantanamo Bay since the
beginning of the “war on terror” declared by the United States were foreign Muslim men, as
it is the case for Mr. al-Uzaybi. The military prison is allegedly exclusively reserved for
foreign Muslim men.
75.
Furthermore, every prisoner brought to Guantanamo Bay was Muslim, indicating that
the United States Government has discriminated on the basis of religion and national origin.
Only United States citizens were granted the right to a writ of habeas corpus at the beginning
of their detention.
76.
The transcript of the last hearing of Mr. al-Uzaybi’s case before the reportedly shows
that questions were directed at his understanding of religious notions, such as “jihad”, which
he explained as referring to the personal struggles of every human being and not to the use
of violence. Allegedly, he was frequently questioned on his religious and political views
relating to the foreign policy of the United States. While he provided answers that confirmed
his absence of violent intent or dangerousness, members of the Board insisted on certain
questions that would never have been raised had he not been a practising Muslim.
77.
The source submits that the refusal of the Periodic Review Board to accede to his
demand for a transfer to a safe place to reunite with his family is directly caused by what
would seem to be a biased assessment of Mr. al-Uzaybi’s potential animosity toward the
United States resulting from his religious beliefs and origins.
78.
The source claims this is a violation of articles 2, 5 (a) and (b), and 6 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, articles
2 and 7 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
6 A/HRC/6/17/Add.3, para. 12.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
9
79.
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s deprivation of liberty allegedly constitutes a violation of international
law for reasons of discrimination based on religion, thus ignoring the equality of human rights,
which renders his detention arbitrary under category V.
Access to medical and rehabilitative care leading to a denial of access to justice
80.
While concerns have been raised over the lack of adequate medical assistance and
rehabilitation for victims of torture at Guantanamo Bay, the source claims that the level of
health care and rehabilitation offered to detainees is not comparable to the care granted to
soldiers onsite.
81.
Owing to the restrictive conditions of his detention, coupled with his inability to
communicate his needs effectively, Mr. al-Uzaybi has been denied any meaningful
opportunity to defend himself. The Periodic Review Board has repeatedly questioned Mr. al-
Uzaybi’s request for a transfer to his family, given his perceived inability to provide
financially for them owing to his poor health and his disability. The source claims that the
position of the Review Board allegedly amounts to forcing Mr. al-Uzaybi to pay a high price
for his 20-year incommunicado detention, torture, permanent hearing disability, denial of
medical care and rehabilitation that he has been, and still is, subjected to and that it amounts
to a violation of his right to equality before the law as a person with a disability, making his
detention arbitrary under category V.
Response from the Governments
82.
On 13 December 2022 the Working Group transmitted to the Governments of
Pakistan, Romania and the United States of America a communication concerning Mr. al-
Uzaybi, requesting them to provide, by 13 February 2023, detailed information about the
circumstances surrounding his detention and transfer, as well as to clarify the legal provisions
justifying his deprivation of liberty and their compatibility with relevant obligations under
international law. The Governments of the Pakistan and the United States did not provide
timely responses. On 10 February 2023, the Government of Romania requested a one-month
extension to respond, which was granted. Romania submitted its response on 13 March 2023.
83.
In its response, Romania argues that the Working Group is precluded from
considering the complaint because it alleges arbitrary detention in the context of enforced
disappearance. It argues that this precludes the communication from being applicable to
Romania as it is not a party to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance, and that, in any event, the matter should fall within the remit
of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. It adds, on the merits, that Mr. al-Uzaybi was
never in the custody of the Romanian penitentiary system.
Additional comments from the source
84.
Regarding the response from the Government of Romania, the source indicates that
enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention and
that the Committee on Enforced Disappearances does not hold any exclusive competence to
hear cases of enforced disappearances, the prohibition of enforced disappearance being based
on both customary law and conventional obligations. Moreover, the source stresses that the
Government response does not refute that Mr. al-Uzaybi was secretly detained and subjected
to torture at a black site situated in Bucharest, from May 2005 until, most probably,
November 2005.
Discussion
85.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government of Romania for its
submissions. In the absence of a timely replies from the Government of Pakistan and the
United States, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion in conformity
with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
86.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. al-Uzaybi is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
10
GE.23-09593
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions that lawful procedures
have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.7
87.
The source has submitted that Mr. al-Uzaybi’s detention is arbitrary and falls under
categories I, III and V. All of three categories are relevant to his treatment by the United
States. Conversely, for Pakistan and Romania only category I and category III (to the extent
it concerns torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) are potentially relevant to their
treatment of Mr. al-Uzaybi. Accordingly, the Working Group will address the source’s
allegations under category I and category III (to the extent it concerns torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment) against Pakistan, Romania and the United States before
turning to the additional allegations against the United States under categories III and V.
88.
At the outset, the Working Group addresses the arguments of Romania, concerning
the inapplicability of the matter in the light of the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, to which Romania is not a party. The Working
Group rejects this argument, on the basis that the matters alleged in the source’s submissions
fall squarely within the mandate of the Working Group.8 To the extent that the allegations
also refer to enforced disappearance, this does not preclude the Working Group from
considering the matter. In fact, the Working Group has frequently addressed cases of arbitrary
detention that also involve allegations of enforced disappearances and can refer those issues
to other special mandate holders for appropriate action,9 in line with its methods of work.10
The Working Group recalls the position of the Human Rights Committee on numerous
occasions in its jurisprudence, highlighting that “enforced disappearance constitutes a
particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention”,11 in violation of article 6 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights”, characterizing such detention as falling under category I.12
89.
Additionally, Romania has submitted that Mr. al-Uzaybi was never in its penitentiary
system. However, the source has provided detailed submissions, supported by references to
other institutions and organizations, indicating that Mr. al-Uzaybi was detained as part of the
extraordinary rendition programme and that Romania was associated with the programme.
Given the lack of any detailed response to the above allegations, and given that the statement
of Romania is consistent with the source’s allegation that Mr. al-Uzaybi was purposefully
kept outside of the regular incarceration system and regular legal processes, the Working
Group can only conclude that Mr. al-Uzaybi was detained in Romania as alleged.
90.
On the substantive matters arising from the complaint, the Working Group notes that
since the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, it has developed a body of legal
analysis and jurisprudence reaffirming that the prohibition of arbitrary detention is a
peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law, from which no derogation is permitted,13
and that the prolonged and indefinite detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay violates
that prohibition.14 The Working Group has set out key principles in this regard, including in
relation to the States’ obligations under human rights law,15 habeas corpus16 and fair trial
rights,17 as well as in relation to the applicability of international humanitarian law.18
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
8 Human Rights Council, resolution 51/8.
9 Opinions No. 23/2022, No. 60/2022 and No. 78/2020.
10 A/HRC/36/38, para. 33.
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
12 Opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 34/2021, and No. 84/2021. See also Case of Al
Nashiri V. Romania (Application No. 33234/12), Judgment, 31 May 2018, para. 690.
13 A/HRC/22/44, para. 51, and opinions No. 10/2013, para. 32; No. 50/2014, para. 66; No. 89/2017,
para. 36; and No. 70/2019, para. 53.
14 Opinions No. 2/2009, No. 3/2009, No. 10/2013, 50/2014, 89/2017, and No. 70/2019.
15 E/CN.4/2006/120, paras. 10–11. Opinion No. 57/2013, para. 55, and CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13,
para. 10.
16 E/CN.4/2003/8, paras. 61–64; E/CN.4/2006/7, paras. 68–75; and A/HRC/4/40, paras. 14–15; see also
opinions No. 44/2005, para. 13; No. 2/2009, para. 27; No. 3/2009, para. 30; No. 53/2016, para. 42;
and No. 89/2017, para. 37 (a).
17 A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, para. 78.
18 Opinions No. 43/2006, para. 31; No. 11/2007, para. 11; and No. 89/2017, para. 43.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
11
91.
On the interrelated issue of “extraordinary renditions”, the Working Group has also
set out relevant principles in its jurisprudence, highlighting its incompatibility under
international law.19
Category I
Arrest and extrajudicial rendition
92.
The source states that Mr. al-Uzaybi was arrested without any legal basis by Pakistani
military forces on 2 May 2005, without any warrant being shown to him or any judicial
process being conducted. He was not arrested in a situation of flagrante delicto and his arrest
was not subject to any judicial oversight. These allegations have not been refuted before the
Working Group by any of the Governments involved.
93.
Noting article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, the Working Group has previously stated
that, 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.20 This is typically21 done through an arrest warrant or arrest
order (or equivalent document).22
94.
Based on the unrefuted facts set out by the source, which the Working Group
considers to be established, the Pakistani military did not show Mr. Uzaybi any warrant or
similar document, notwithstanding the fact that he was not arrested on the battlefield or in
any situation of flagrante delicto, in which an ex ante warrant would not be practicable. He
was then rendered, outside of any legal framework, from Pakistan into the custody of the
United States and then on to Romania. There is no indication that he was notified of the
reasons for his arrest in a timely manner or promptly informed of any charges against him
during these processes by any of the Governments involved. On this basis, the Working
Group finds that Mr. al-Uzaybi’s rights under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant were
violated.
95.
As noted above, the source alleges that he was kept outside of any legal framework,
while being rendered from Pakistan into the custody of the United States and Romania. While
in custody, he was subjected to various legal procedures, but alleges that, to date, neither the
administrative processes set in Guantanamo Bay nor his habeas corpus writ (still pending
before the judicial authorities of the United States) have allowed him to challenge the legality
of his detention.
96.
Concerning the right to challenge the lawfulness of an arrest, the Working Group notes
article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant. Moreover, any form of detention or imprisonment
should be ordered by, or be subjected to, the effective control of a judicial or other authority,
which is competent, impartial and independent.23
97.
In the light of the source’s unrefuted allegations, there is no indication that Mr. al-
Uzaybi had the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest before a competent,
impartial and independent judicial body. Indeed, it was only on 8 February 2007, over 18
months after his arrest, that Mr. al-Uzaybi was reportedly presented to an official body,
namely the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Noting that the procedural shortcomings of
the Review Tribunal are addressed under category III below, the Working Group finds that
Mr. al-Uzaybi was deprived of his rights, under article 9 of the Covenant, to be brought
19 A/HRC/4/40, para. 49; A/HRC/13/42, para. 36; and A/HRC/48/55, para. 59; see also opinions
No. 47/2005, paras. 19–20; No. 53/2016, paras. 59–60; No. 11/2018, para. 54; and No. 15/2021,
para. 94.
20 Opinions No. 46/2017, No. 66/2017, No. 75/2017, No. 93/2017, No. 35/2018, and No. 79/2018.
21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 21; see also opinions No. 88/2017,
para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
22 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27; and opinion No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59.
23 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
principle 4.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
12
GE.23-09593
promptly before a judge and to bring proceedings before a court without delay to challenge
the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if his detention is not lawful.
98.
In relation to the practice of extraordinary renditions, according to the source, Mr. al-
Uzaybi was allegedly rendered by Pakistan to the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency
and was then transported to black sites in Afghanistan and Romania, between 24 and 28 May
2005, by the Central Intelligence Agency in private planes, and subsequently kept at black
sites over a period of several months, during which time he was tortured.
99.
The Working Group has noted that the practice of so-called renditions is aimed at
avoiding all procedural safeguards and is not compatible with international law. It has
expressed concern about transfers and detention outside the confines of any legal procedure,
that do not allow the individuals access to counsel or to any judicial authority to contest the
transfers and has considered such transfers to be arbitrary, such as where no charges are laid
against the detainees, they are not informed of any accusation against them nor brought
before any judicial authority.24 Individuals should not be expelled to another country when
there are substantial grounds for believing that their lives would be at risk or that they would
be in danger of being subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This
is sometimes considered under the principle of non-refoulement. The risk of arbitrary
detention in the receiving State must be among the elements taken into consideration.25
100.
The source’s unrefuted allegations show that Mr. al-Uzaybi was transferred by
Pakistan into the custody of the United States outside the usual legal procedures and without
a hearing before a judge. By 2005, when Mr. al-Uzaybi was arrested, the existence of
Guantanamo Bay and the United States programme of transporting persons detained by
Pakistan to various sites, including Guantanamo Bay, was an established practice.26 Similarly,
the transfer of custody of Mr. al-Uzaybi between the United States and Romania was done
outside of the usual legal frameworks. The Working Group notes that the Council of Europe’s
investigation into secret detention and rendition concluded that key arrangements for the
clandestine operations of the Central Intelligence Agency were secured on a bilateral level
with the United States by a number of countries, including Romania.
101.
The Working Group recalls that the principle of joint responsibility that applies to
States when more than one of them were involved in the perpetration of a violation. The
articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, specify that: “A State
which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by
the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) That State does so with knowledge
of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) The act would be
internationally wrongful if committed by that State”.27 In the light of its findings above, the
Working Group is satisfied that the Governments of the Pakistan, Romania and the United
States all played a role in the extraordinary rendition programme, whether through directly
detaining persons subjected to it or through knowingly assisting the implementation of the
programme through transport access and the provision of locations for unregistered detention
sites. The Working Group notes, in particular, that, although the United States played the
most significant role in the violations of Mr. al-Uzaybi’s rights, he was arrested by Pakistani
military forces and then held for several days before being rendered, without any legal
proceedings, to the Central Intelligence Agency. The Working Group also notes the visit of
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to Romania while Mr. al-Uzaybi was being
detained there, and the fact he was detained in Romania on at least two occasions, pursuant
to a bilateral agreement between the Romania and the United States. In the light of this
information, the Working Group considers that these States are all jointly responsible for the
arrest, rendition and arbitrary detention of Mr. al-Uzaybi,28 which amount to violations of
international human rights law, and constitutes arbitrary detention under category I.
24 Opinion No. 70/2019 concerning Mohammed al-Qahtani (United States of America).
25 A/HRC/4/40, para. 49; A/HRC/13/42, para. 36; and A/HRC/48/55, para. 59; see also opinions
No. 47/2005, paras. 19–20; and No. 53/2016, paras. 59–60; No. 11/2018, para. 54; and No. 15/2021,
para. 94.
26 See opinion No. 70/2019; see also A/HRC/49/45, annex.
27 See articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, article 16.
28 Opinion No. 84/2020, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
13
102.
Moreover, the source submits that, following his arrest in early 2005, Mr. al-Uzaybi
was not allowed to contact his family until 2007, when he was able to do so by letter.
Thereafter, he was allowed a first monitored call with relatives in 2015. According to the
source, ICRC reportedly requested to the authorities of the United States for information on
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s fate and whereabouts in 2005 and 2006, but these requests were not answered.
The source considers that Governments of Pakistan, Romania and the United States are
jointly responsible for his arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance and torture. The
Governments have not responded to these allegations.
103.
The Working Group considers that the source has laid out a credible account, which
is supported by documentation, including from ICRC. The Working Group considers that Mr.
al-Uzaybi was deprived of his liberty against his will by officials of the United States who
refused to disclose his fate and whereabouts. Accordingly, the Working Group finds that he
was subjected to enforced disappearance, in contravention of articles 9 and 14 of the
Covenant, which constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention. 29 The
Working Group notes that, in this way, Mr. al-Uzaybi was also placed outside the protection
of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
16 of the Covenant.30 The Working Group concludes that these amount to violations of Mr.
al-Uzaybi’s rights to liberty, to be informed of the basis for arrest and charges against him,
and to promptly challenge that detention or be released, under category I.
104.
Additionally, the source notes that currently, 17 years after his arrest, Mr. al-Uzaybi
has still not been charged with a crime. He is held at Guantanamo Bay not as a prisoner of
war but as an illegal enemy combatant, purportedly pursuant to the law on the Authorization
for Use of Military Force, although the Working Group notes that the law does not
specifically authorize arrest or detention. 31 To the extent the Governments relied on
international humanitarian law, they have not demonstrated that there are ongoing
circumstances justifying his detention under the “law of war”. Consequently, and on this
basis, his detention is arbitrary under category I.
Category III (torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment: Pakistan, Romania and
the United States)
105.
Under category III, the Working Group first turns to the torture and cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment allegations, which concern all three Governments. According to the
source, Pakistani authorities must have known that, if rendered to the Central Intelligence
Agency, Mr. al-Uzaybi would be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment. He was transported to black sites in Afghanistan and Romania between 24 and 28
May 2005, by the Central Intelligence Agency in private planes. The source alleges that the
Governments of Pakistan, Romania and the United States collaborated in his torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment and are jointly responsible for his arbitrary arrest, enforced
disappearance and torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
106.
Individuals should not be expelled to another country when there are substantial
grounds for believing that their lives would be at risk, or that they would be in danger of
being subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,32 which is sometimes
referred to as non-refoulement. Torture itself is a peremptory norm of international law, and
also prohibited by article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 of the
Covenant and by the Convention against Torture.33
29 Human Rights Committee, general comment 35 (2014), para. 17, and opinion No. 5/2020, para. 74.
30 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paras. 35–36; see also opinions No. 59/2019, para. 50; and No. 5/2020,
paras. 73–74.
31 Opinions No. 10/2013, para. 34; No. 50/2014, para. 69; and No. 70/2019, para. 64.
32 A/HRC/4/40, para. 49; opinions No. 47/2005, paras. 19–20; No. 53/2016, paras. 59–60; No. 11/2018,
para. 54; and No. 15/2021, para. 94; see also A/HRC/13/42, para. 36; and A/HRC/48/55, para. 59.
33 The Working Group notes the reservations to article 7 of the Covenant and to the Convention against
Torture, in particular that the Government of the United States considers itself bound by the
prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment only to the extent that it means
the cruel, unusual and inhuman treatment or punishment prohibited by the fifth, eighth and/or
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
14
GE.23-09593
107.
The Working Group recalls that Mr. al-Uzaybi was transferred by Pakistan into the
custody of the United States. Similarly, the transfer of custody of Mr. al-Uzaybi between
Romania and the United States was done outside of the regular legal frameworks. The
Working Group notes the source’s unrefuted claim that the use of all enhanced interrogation
techniques combined on Mr. al-Uzaybi was approved by the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency upon his arrival in Romania. Given that the whole enhanced detention
and interrogation programme was established outside of the official legal controls, and given
the information set out above regarding the roles of the two respondent States in carrying out
mistreatment on behalf of the United States, or participating in the programme with
knowledge of its nature, the Working Group considers that Pakistan and Romania had at a
minimum substantial information to believe that Mr. al-Uzaybi would be subjected to torture
at the hands of the authorities of the United States as a result of his inclusion in the enhanced
detention and interrogation programme, in which they participated.
108.
The source alleges that Mr. al-Uzaybi was tortured in detention by the Central
Intelligence Agency for over 460 days, during which time he was subjected to a combination
of enhanced interrogation techniques, as described above. The cumulative effect of these
techniques was severe. Indeed, the torture resulted in him suffering severe hearing loss in
both ears (100 per cent in the left ear and approximately 50 per cent in the right ear), traumatic
brain damage, memory loss, word-finding problems, spinal injuries, sleep disruption,
complex post-traumatic stress disorder and other chronic medical problems. Additionally,
while held in black sites and during torture sessions, Mr. al-Uzaybi was forced to make self-
incriminating statements.
109.
The Working Group calls on the Governments of Pakistan, Romania and the United
States to investigate this alleged torture, in accordance with their obligations under articles 4,
12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture, and to prosecute anyone found to have been
involved. The prohibition of torture, which is non-derogable, including during the fight
against terrorism because of its status as a jus cogens norm, encompasses the obligation to
investigate alleged violations promptly and to bring perpetrators to justice, as well as the
prohibition of the use of evidence obtained under torture in legal proceedings.34
110.
The extraction of self-incriminating statements through the use of torture raises
serious concerns about due process. The Working Group has previously held that due process
concerns apply to administrative detention.35 In the absence of submissions on this issue from
the Governments, the source has demonstrated that such materials may have been used as
evidence to try to justify Mr. al-Uzaybi’s ongoing detention, in violation of his human rights
under article 7 and 14 of the Covenant and under article 15 of the Convention against Torture.
111.
Moreover, taking into account the severity of the alleged torture and its impact upon
Mr. al-Uzaybi, the Working Group considers it extremely unlikely that he would have been
able to effectively participate in the legal proceedings that were conducted, reinforcing the
conclusion that his due process rights were violated.36 The mistreatment he was subjected to,
and the resulting impairment he has suffered, will also likely compromise his ability to
participate in any trial that may eventually occur. In the light of this, the Working Group
refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Additional category III violations (United States of America)
112.
Also under category III, the source alleges that he was not brought before a competent,
independent and impartial judicial authority. Instead, his detention was only subjected to an
administrative review process, specifically the proceedings of the Combatant Status Review
Tribunal and the Periodic Review Board. It is alleged that Mr. al-Uzaybi never had access to
fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. However, it considers that the alleged
treatment of Mr. al-Uzaybi is of such a grave nature that it would violate any internationally accepted
definition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
34 Opinion No. 89/2017, paras. 41–45.
35 Opinions No. 12/2020, and No. 49/2020.
36 Opinions No. 29/2017, para. 63; No. 47/2017, para. 28; No. 52/2018, para. 79. (j); and No. 53/2018,
para. 77 (c); see also E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
15
his files, could not access a lawyer (he was assigned a personal representative, a military
official without legal qualification and who did not hold the status and privileges of an
attorney) and could not participate in the reviews of his detention in a meaningful way. There
was a systematic use of ex parte evidence, in violation of fair trial rules and equality of arms.
The allegations against Mr. al-Uzaybi were vaguely conveyed to him and contained in
summaries based on uncorroborated assumptions. Moreover, the evidence against him came
from another high-value detainee who had provided it while under torture in the custody of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Meanwhile, Mr. al-Uzaybi was not allowed to call witnesses
for evidence. As noted above, Mr. al-Uzaybi was allegedly subjected to enhanced
interrogation techniques and was forced to make self-incriminating statements, in violation
of his right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant and his right not to
be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.
113.
In relation to procedural safeguards relevant to category III, there is considerable
overlap with the issues raised in the discussion of category I above. The source alleges that
the Government of the United States failed to observe international fair trial guarantees.
114.
It is clear to the Working Group that the obligations of the United States under
international human rights law extend to persons detained at Guantanamo Bay, including Mr.
al-Uzaybi.37 With regard to access to a lawyer, the Working Group notes the unrefuted
allegations that he first met with a habeas corpus counsel two years after arriving at
Guantanamo, that his writ of habeas corpus is still undecided 13 years later, and that his
counsel had limited access to his files. In conjunction with the use of ex parte evidence, and
his subjection to enhanced interrogation techniques to force him to make self-incriminating
statements, the Working Group finds that he was deprived of his due process rights, including
his right to legal representation in order to defend himself.
115.
Mr. al-Uzaybi’s detention without a trial for over 17 years violates his rights under
article 9 (3) of the Covenant to be tried within a reasonable time, and under article 14 (3) (c)
of the Covenant to be tried without undue delay. Because of this delay, he will be significantly
hampered in his ability to recall events and present a defence should any trial ever occur.
Consequently, his detention is arbitrary under category III on this basis.
116.
In relation to the proceedings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and the
Periodic Review Board, the Working Group recalls that any form of detention or
imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subjected to, the effective control of a judicial
authority, as required under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. The judicial or other authority
should enjoy the status and tenure affording the strongest possible guarantees of competence,
impartiality and independence.38
117.
Mr. al-Uzaybi was brought before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal almost two
years after his arrest. As noted, he had limited, if any, access to the information on which his
detention was based. The Review Tribunal did not meet the standards of review by a judicial
authority as, inter alia, it could not review the lawfulness of detention. In accordance with
the views of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Boumediene v. Bush,
hearings before the Review Tribunal do not satisfy the right to habeas corpus or to a fair and
independent trial under articles 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 14 (1)
of the Covenant.39 The Periodic Review Boards, which replaced the Review Tribunals were
also flawed. The Review Boards are composed of members of the executive, lacking
sufficient independence to ensure a proper review. The decisions of the Review Boards are
not subjected to judicial review and they refuse to exclude evidence provided under torture
unless all participating agencies concur that the interrogators engaged in torture. In the light
of these factors, the Working Group considers that the bodies before which Mr. al-Uzaybi
appeared suffer from several flaws and do not exhibit the requisite characteristics of
competence, impartiality and independence. The Guantanamo Review Task Force was also
not sufficiently independent, as it was composed of officers from various executive agencies.
The use of these bodies in Mr. al-Uzaybi’s instance did not constitute a sufficient substitute
37 Opinion No. 70/2019, para. 56.
38 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
principle 4; see also A/HRC/WGAD/2021/32, para. 40.
39 Opinions No. 2/2009, No. 10/2013, No. 50/2014, and No. 89/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
16
GE.23-09593
for his due process rights. His detention in these conditions is sufficiently serious to amount
to a violation under category III.
118.
The Working Group considers that the extensive period of his detention without trial,
exceeding 17 years, is excessive and contrary to due process, in violation of his rights to be
tried within a reasonable time under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, and to be tried without
undue delay under article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.
Category V
119.
The source argues that Mr. al-Uzaybi is being subjected to multiple and intersecting
forms of discrimination on the grounds of his religion and his impairments. He argues that
his continued indefinite detention is directly linked to the fact that he is a Muslim foreign
national. He points out that every prisoner brought to Guantanamo Bay was Muslim,
indicating that the United States Government has discriminated on the basis of religion as
well as national origin.
120.
The Working Group notes that the various denials of and restrictions on rights, that
are ordinarily not applicable within the United States, apply exclusively to non-national
Muslim men at Guantanamo Bay.40 The Working Group finds that Mr. al-Uzaybi has been
deprived of his fair trial guarantees. On the basis of the source’s unrefuted allegation, he was
frequently questioned on his religious and political views relating to the United States foreign
policy. By discriminating on the basis of his status as a foreign national and his religion, the
United States has denied Mr. al-Uzaybi equality before the law, in violation of articles 2, 5
(a) and (b) and 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2
(1) and 26 of the Covenant.
Concluding remarks
121.
The Working Group notes with concern the source’s indications that Mr. al-Uzaybi is
the most severely impaired and incapacitated detainee at Guantanamo Bay and that his health
is declining (exhibiting a chronic deteriorating course with significant disabilities that will
increasingly impair his health, mental state and general well-being). It notes the source’s
statements that the medical care he needs is not available and he has not received therapies
and treatments that are typically provided to service members who demonstrate such
conditions, illnesses and impairments.
122.
The Working Group recalls that medical care at Guantanamo has been, and remains,
grossly deficient and that, for years, communication between inmates was prohibited, with
serious psychological effects. The Working Group feels obliged to remind the Governments,
and the Government of the United States in particular, that, in accordance with article 10 of
the Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with
respect to the inherent dignity of the human person and that denial of medical assistance
constitutes a violation, in particular, of rules 1, 24, 25, 27, 30 and 32 the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), as well
as principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment. The Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health has noted that, in
contexts of confinement and deprivation of liberty, violations of the right to health interfere
with fair trial guarantees, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and of torture and other forms
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the enjoyment of the right to life.41
123.
While the Working Group has specifically addressed Mr. al-Uzaybi’s circumstances
in the present opinion, the conclusions reached here also apply to other detainees in similar
situations at Guantanamo Bay. Over the past 15 years, the Working Group has addressed
40 Opinions No. 10/2013, No. 50/2014, No. 89/2017, and No. 70/2019; see also CERD/C/USA/CO/7-9,
para. 22; and opinion No. 89/2017, para. 62 (the Working Group concluded that an individual in
Guantanamo Bay: “has been subjected to prolonged detention on discriminatory grounds because of
his status as a foreign national and his religious beliefs as a Muslim”.).
41 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
GE.23-09593
17
several cases of detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Working Group expresses grave concern
about the pattern that all these cases follow and recalls that under certain circumstances,
widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity.
124.
The Working Group recalls the findings from its 2016 visit to the United States,
including in relation to Guantanamo Bay.42 The closure of Guantanamo Bay was previously
an important priority of the Government. The Working Group urges the Government to once
again prioritize the closing of that facility. In the meantime, the Working Group urges the
Government to cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms and allow them full
access to it. It considers that an invitation to undertake a follow-up visit to the United States,
with specific authorization to visit Guantanamo, would be welcome.43
Disposition
125.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mr. al-Uzaybi, being in contravention of articles 2, 5, 7,
9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (3), 7, 9 (1), (2),
(3) and (4), 10 and 14 (3) (c) and 26 of the Covenant, is arbitrary. The Working Group
considers that United States of America is responsible for his arbitrary detention under
categories I, III and V, whereas Pakistan and Romania are responsible for arbitrary
detention according to category I and III (in relation to torture, cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment).
126.
The Working Group requests the Governments found to be responsible for the
violations of Mr. al-Uzaybi’s rights, as detailed herein, to take the steps necessary to remedy
his situation without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms,
including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
127.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. al-Uzaybi immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law. In the 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 his immediate release.
128.
The Working Group urges the Governments found to be responsible for the violations
of his rights, as detailed herein, to ensure full, complete and independent investigations of
the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. al-Uzaybi and to
take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.
129.
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.
130.
The Working Group requests the Governments concerned to disseminate the present
opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
131.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Governments concerned, as detailed herein, to provide it with information
on action taken in follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. al-Uzaybi has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. al-Uzaybi;
42 A/HRC/36/37/Add.2.
43 The Working Group notes that the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism undertook a technical visit to
Guantanamo Bay in 2023.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/18
18
GE.23-09593
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. al-
Uzaybi’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 Governments found to be responsible for the violations
of his rights with its international obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
132.
The Governments found to be responsible for the violations of his rights are 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.
133.
The Working Group requests the source and the Governments found to be responsible
for the violations of his rights 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.
134.
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.44
[Adopted on 29 March 2023]
44 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.