Opinion; Subjects: BAHRAIN, 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.23-11048 (E) 190623 200623
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. 25/2023 concerning Ahmed Ali Ahmed Yusuf, Alaa
Mansoor Mohamed Redha Ahmed Ansaif, Husain Ali Hasan Ali
Mohamed Matar, Husain Ali Jaafar Mohamed Abdulla, Mohamed Ali
Mohsen Abdulla Baddaw and Sayed Husain Saeed Alawi Ali Mohamed
Al-Khabbaz (Bahrain)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 23 December 2022 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Bahrain a communication concerning Ahmed Ali Ahmed
Yusuf, Alaa Mansoor Mohamed Redha Ahmed Ansaif, Husain Ali Hasan Ali Mohamed
Matar, Husain Ali Jaafar Mohamed Abdulla, Mohamed Ali Mohsen Abdulla Baddaw and
Sayed Husain Saeed Alawi Ali Mohamed Al-Khabbaz. The Government replied to the
communication on 20 March 2023 and submitted additional information in a late response
on 23 March 2023. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
General Assembly
Distr.: General
20 June 2023
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
2
GE.23-11048
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Ahmed Ali Ahmed Yusuf is a Bahraini university student from Sitra born in 1997.
5.
The source reports that, on 9 February 2017, a joint security team consisting of
personnel from the Criminal Investigation Directorate, the Special Security Force Command
and the National Security Agency, arrested Mr. Yusuf while he was at sea, without presenting
a warrant, as part of a security operation conducted by the Ministry of the Interior to capture
two fugitive political prisoners, which resulted in the deaths of three people. Mr. Yusuf’s foot
was wounded by live bullets, an injury he still suffers from. The Ministry later published the
reason for the arrest, accusing Mr. Yusuf of smuggling criminals and transferring guns and
explosives.
6.
In the weeks leading up to his arrest, Mr. Yusuf’s family home was repeatedly raided
and searched. The family was unaware of the reason and was not provided with any warrant
or summons. Some items, including a laptop computer and other devices, were seized, the
majority of which belonged to a member of Mr. Yusuf’s family.
7.
After his arrest, Mr. Yusuf was sent to Building 152 at Jau Prison, where he was
subjected to forced disappearance for 40 days to obtain confessions from him under torture.
The National Security Agency officers subjected Mr. Yusuf to torture, including beating him
severely and inflicting electric shocks in the genital area; keeping him in chains, even during
prayer time, with iron chains around his feet, hands and neck so that he would receive electric
shocks; isolating him in a small room with cold air-conditioning; harassing him; and torturing
him psychologically. Due to the torture, he was transferred to Al-Qalaa Hospital, before being
returned to Jau Prison. After 40 days, Mr. Yusuf called his family and complained about the
torture.
8.
Two months after his arrest, he was transferred to Dry Dock Detention Centre, where
an officer assaulted him, pulling him away from the cameras, beating and insulting him and
forcing Mr. Yusuf to kiss the officer’s feet and shoes. When the family met Mr. Yusuf for
the first time, the signs of torture were still apparent.
9.
Mr. Yusuf was among 59 defendants in a mass trial in which two defendants were
sentenced to death and executed. He was convicted of concealing and harbouring fugitives,
smuggling, maintaining a bomb factory in his house, possessing weapons and explosives in
2016 with the intention of using them for a terrorist act in 2017, training on the use of
weapons in the Islamic Republic of Iran, joining a terrorist cell and financing terrorism.
10.
The authorities denied Mr. Yusuf access to his lawyer during the interrogations. When
Mr. Yusuf was presented before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the first time, six months
after his arrest, the lawyer was present but was not allowed to speak to Mr. Yusuf. The lawyer
was also present during the trial, but was not allowed to speak to Mr. Yusuf. Mr. Yusuf did
not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for trial and he could not present evidence at
trial, where a confession obtained through torture was used against him.
11.
On 31 January 2018, Mr. Yusuf was sentenced to life imprisonment, which was
upheld by the High Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. He is being held at Jau
Prison.
2 Reportedly used as an interrogation centre by the National Security Agency.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
3
12.
On 23 May 2021, he contracted coronavirus (COVID-19) disease while in Jau Prison
but the authorities did not inform his family. Mr. Yusuf called his family once during his
quarantine to inform them of his illness and the deteriorating situation regarding the spread
of the virus in the prison. He received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.
13.
Mr. Yusuf was denied the opportunity to continue his university degree.
14.
Alaa Mansoor Mohamed Redha Ahmed Ansaif is a Bahraini student from Bani Jamra
born in 1995. He was 17 years old and preparing to start university when he was arrested.
15.
On 4 August 2013, at 10:35 a.m., masked intelligence agents in civilian clothes raided
Mr. Ansaif’s house after entering without warning or permission. They arrested Mr. Ansaif
as part of a random raid on the village during Ramadan. Three cameras, a laptop computer
and a phone were confiscated. No warrant was provided, nor a reason for the arrest.
16.
Mr. Ansaif was subjected to enforced disappearance for nine days, during which his
family did not receive any news about his whereabouts, despite their inquiries at the Budaiya
police station and the Criminal Investigation Directorate, which denied having him in
custody. He contacted his family on 7 August 2013 for only three seconds, telling them not
to worry, without indicating his whereabouts. On 13 August 2013, Mr. Ansaif contacted his
family again, informing them that he had been detained at Dry Dock Detention Centre since
12 August 2013 and had been subjected to an examination at Al-Qalaa Hospital.
17.
During the nine days in which he was subjected to enforced disappearance, officers
took Mr. Ansaif to the Criminal Investigation Directorate and tortured him to coerce a
confession, beating him, torturing him psychologically and insulting his religious sect and
beliefs. They transferred him to the Al-Rifaa police station to recover and to enable the signs
of torture to disappear. Mr. Ansaif did not know where he was being held. He was later
presented to the Public Prosecutor’s Office without his lawyer, despite the lawyer having
submitted a request to be present during any investigation, which the Office refused to
receive. Mr. Ansaif was forced to sign a document prepared by the officers accusing him of
photographing a street in Budaiya during the explosion of a gas cylinder. He confessed under
torture and his coerced confessions were relied upon by the court. Reportedly, Mr. Ansaif
was with his family members at the time of the incident in Budaiya and the allegations were
fabricated.
18.
On 15 August 2013, while meeting with his family for the first time since his
detention, Mr. Ansaif informed them of the torture, whose marks were clearly apparent on
his face and neck. Due to the torture and medical negligence, Mr. Ansaif had a broken jaw
and many bruises, could not feel his face and was unable to speak. He now has breathing
problems, painful knee cartilage injuries, poor eyesight and a spinal injury and is in constant
pain. He only obtained a medical appointment and underwent a necessary operation for his
nose a year after his arrest. He had been completely healthy prior to his arrest.
19.
Throughout the investigation and trial, Mr. Ansaif was denied access to his lawyer.
Mr. Ansaif did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for the trial. While the lawyer
was present at the trial, he was not allowed contact with Mr. Ansaif. Neither Mr. Ansaif nor
his lawyer were allowed to present evidence during the trial.
20.
The family was not informed of the proceedings, nor permitted to attend court
sessions. Reportedly, the judge made a series of charges against Mr. Ansaif, who was
required to reply true or false, and if he tried to talk or object, the judge asked him to remain
silent.
21.
On 18 March 2014, Mr. Ansaif was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment on the charge
of photographing a street in Budaiya during the explosion of a gas cylinder.
22.
While in Jau Prison, Mr. Ansaif was charged with participating in a prison
demonstration, on 10 March 2015, and sentenced to 15 additional years of imprisonment and
a fine. The length of imprisonment was later reduced to 10 years on appeal. His total sentence
amounted to 28 years in prison.
23.
Mr. Ansaif’s family filed several complaints to the Ombudsman and the National
Institution for Human Rights concerning his torture. The officer who tortured him was
sentenced to three months of imprisonment but the military court suspended the sentence. On
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
4
GE.23-11048
5 January 2017, the Third Higher Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the sentence against the
officer but set a bail of 100 dinars to suspend its execution, so the officer was not imprisoned.
24.
Mr. Ansaif tested positive for COVID-19 and spent 10 days in the isolation building.
On 1 June 2021, he received a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, but the second dose was
delayed.
25.
Mr. Ansaif has not been permitted to enrol in university while imprisoned.
26.
Husain Ali Hasan Ali Mohamed Matar is a Bahraini student born on 13 June 2004.
He was 16 years old when arrested in June 2020.
27.
Mr. Matar was first arrested in 2018 at the age of 14 years on political charges and
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He repeated his second year of middle school while
in New Dry Dock Detention Centre but was not given a diploma. He was released in 2020
during Ramadan due to a royal pardon, when he had only a few days remaining in his
sentence.
28.
A month after his release, on 28 June 2020, an officer wearing civilian clothes arrested
Mr. Matar outside the Roundabout 17 police station in Hamad Town. No warrant was
provided, but a family member had received a summons by mobile telephone from an
individual in the Ministry of the Interior to bring Mr. Matar to the police station for
questioning, without no reason given. The individual insisted that the family must not enter
the police station, but rather call his number and he would come out and take Mr. Matar
inside. The individual was the same individual who had always threatened Mr. Matar, telling
him every time he saw him, “I will always be behind you and I will never leave you alone.”
29.
Mr. Matar was taken into the police station, while his family waited outside.
Eventually, an officer came out and gave the family Mr. Matar’s belongings, telling them
that they would be called with any updates.
30.
During Mr. Matar’s two-week interrogation at the Roundabout 17 police station, the
officers tortured him to coerce a confession, including by forcing him to stand for long
periods of time, excessive beatings, blindfolding, cutting his hair as a form of humiliation,
preventing him from praying and depriving him of water and food. Due to the torture, Mr.
Matar confessed to the charges and the confession was used against him at trial.
31.
He was transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office a week after his arrest. Mr. Matar
was accused of assaulting a police officer and possession of Molotov cocktails in the village
of Buri, although he lives in the village of Sehla. Reportedly, Mr. Matar was with his family
when that incident took place. When the lawyer attended the session at the Public
Prosecutor’s Office, he and Mr. Matar were not allowed to speak. The lawyer observed that
Mr. Matar was unable to speak because of the torture he had been subjected to.
32.
For two weeks after his arrest, Mr. Matar was unable to contact his family, who had
no news about him. Afterwards, he called to inform them that he was at the Dry Dock
Detention Centre.
33.
Throughout the investigation and trial, Mr. Matar’s lawyer was not allowed to speak
with him. Mr. Matar did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for the trial. Neither
Mr. Matar nor his lawyer were allowed to present evidence during the trial.
34.
On 29 September 2020, Mr. Matar was sentenced to three years in prison, which was
upheld by the appeal court, which also added a fine.
35.
Mr. Matar was transported to New Dry Dock Detention Centre where he is being held.
36.
Mr. Matar’s family filed complaints to the Ombudsman regarding his deprivation of
calls, clothing and treatment for his eyesight and his severe allergies, which were due to the
unsanitary conditions in the prison. They have not received any response.
37.
After contracting scabies, Mr. Matar was placed in sanitary isolation and eventually
provided with a cream without a doctor’s consultation, which worsened his condition. Mr.
Matar also suffers from sickle cell anaemia.
38.
Husain Ali Jaafar Mohamed Abdulla is a Bahraini student born on 26 August 1994.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
5
39.
On 17 October 2012, Mr. Abdulla was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and
a fine of 200 dinars on charges of illegal assembly and rioting. He was released after serving
five months in prison and paying the fine. After being sent several summonses in 2016, the
family was asked by the authorities for another 200 dinars to stop the execution of the
sentence.
40.
On 26 August 2016, around the same day that the family paid the fine, Mr. Abdulla
was arrested. Around 10 masked security officers in civilian clothing with police badges
raided the house of a relative of Mr. Abdulla. They handcuffed Mr. Abdulla from the back
with his head pressed against the wall, while filming with a camera. Four officers escorted
him outside the house. No warrant was presented.
41.
After his arrest, Mr. Abdulla was taken to the Criminal Investigation Directorate and
then to the Khayala3 police station, where the officers subjected him to torture. After his
arrest, the officers called him a terrorist. Mr. Abdulla was transferred to the family’s stable
and filmed in different areas there. Later, he was returned to the Directorate and subjected to
severe torture on his legs and in his genital area. As a result, he was transferred to Al-Qalaa
Hospital, where he received basic treatment.
42.
Mr. Abdulla was interrogated for five days without his lawyer. He confessed under
torture and the authorities made him sign the case records without permitting him to read
them or know their content. He was able to briefly call his family for the first time, informing
them that he was being held at the “interrogations”.4 Prior to the call, his family knew nothing
about his whereabouts and well-being, as he had been forcibly disappeared. Following the
interrogations, Mr. Abdulla was transferred to Jau Prison, where he is serving a sentence that
amounted to 17 years after appeals.
43.
Mr. Abdulla was convicted in five cases. On 28 January 2013, 21 September 2014,
and 15 April 2015, he was sentenced in absentia, without the presence of his lawyer, on
charges of illegal assembly and rioting and possession of flammable canisters. The first
judgment was upheld on appeal and the third judgment was upheld in absentia.
44.
On 29 December 2015, he was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment for
attempting to detonate a bomb and attempted murder. On 13 March 2017, his sentence was
reduced to 15 years on appeal.
45.
On 4 April 2018, Mr. Abdulla was sentenced, in the presence of his lawyer, to one
year’s imprisonment and payment of a bail on charges of destruction by negligence and
illegal assembly and rioting. The judgment was upheld on appeal.
46.
Reportedly, neither the family nor Mr. Abdulla knew about the December 2015 case
or the issuance of the life sentence, nor did they receive any summons in this regard. On the
several occasions when the family house was raided, a summons had been issued requesting
his attendance at the headquarters of the investigations building without mentioning the
reasons. Mr. Abdulla did not have a lawyer during the proceedings or trial period. During the
appeal, the family appointed a lawyer, who attended the sessions. Mr. Abdulla was deprived
of his right to attend the hearings and did not know their details.
47.
Throughout his cases, Mr. Abdulla was not allowed to defend himself and did not
meet with a lawyer. He was not able to attend court hearings, except briefly on one occasion.
48.
On 21 January 2021, Mr. Abdulla’s family filed complaints with the Ombudsman and
the National Human Rights Institution but received a response only from the latter, which
noted that he was being held at Salmaniya Hospital. However, when contacted by the family,
the prison administration insisted that Mr. Abdulla was still in prison. When the family went
to the hospital, they saw Mr. Abdulla tied to the bed surrounded by police officers. He was
on a waiting list for surgery following the rupture of his appendix due to the prison
administration’s negligence and delay in his treatment.
3 A police directorate in the Northern Governorate reportedly used as a torture centre in some cases.
4 Reportedly, detainees are often forced to make such calls, where “interrogations” refers to the
Criminal Investigation Directorate, although the detainees are not always being held there.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
6
GE.23-11048
49.
In June 2021, Mr. Abdulla tested positive for COVID-19 and was transferred to
Building 3 in Jau Prison, where infected prisoners were held. The authorities did not inform
his family, nor did they provide him with any medical care or sanitary products.
50.
He is continuing to pursue his high-school diploma, but books are only sometimes
provided.
51.
Mohamed Ali Mohsen Abdulla Baddaw is a Bahraini high-school student born on 14
September 1997 and living in Duraz.
52.
Mr. Baddaw was first arrested when he was 14. Officers then released him with the
threat that they would arrest him again when he turned 17. They pursued him for more than
three years, which made Mr. Baddaw unable to live his childhood normally. He could not
complete his studies because of the arrest.
53.
On 16 January 2016, armed riot police arrested Mr. Baddaw at gunpoint from Al-
Ettifaq Sports Club, near his house, where he was playing with a friend. No warrant was
provided. He had received five summonses before the arrest, the most recent issued on 21
October 2014.
54.
The officers took Mr. Baddaw in a civilian car to the Budaiya police station, where
they beat him while he was handcuffed and blindfolded. He called his family hours after his
arrest to inform them of his whereabouts. He was interrogated regarding a case for which he
had been sentenced in absentia and regarding cases that were still being considered by the
court. The officers tortured him to coerce a confession, beating him severely and breaking a
chair on his back. He was deprived of sleep and was not permitted to pray. His lawyer was
not allowed to attend the interrogation.
55.
As a result of the torture, Mr. Baddaw was forced to sign confessions that he was not
allowed to read. The confessions were used against him in trial.
56.
On 17 January 2016, officers transferred Mr. Baddaw to New Dry Dock Detention
Centre, where they also subjected him to torture. He called his family on the same day to tell
them about his transfer.
57.
Mr. Baddaw was convicted in 11 cases and sentenced to over 20 years of
imprisonment on charges that included illegal assembly and rioting, the manufacture of
usable or explosive canisters, damage through negligence, triggering an explosive device or
attempting to do so, using explosives to endanger the property of others, attempted murder,
endangering people’s lives or safety, arson and deliberately endangering a private means of
transport. In several of the cases, he was sentenced in absentia.
58.
Mr. Baddaw was denied access to his lawyer during the interrogations and was never
allowed to speak with him during the trial. He was also denied access to the adequate time
and facilities to prepare for the trial and was not permitted to present evidence at trial.
59.
His family filed several complaints with the Ombudsman and the National Human
Rights Institution but received no response.
60.
Mr. Baddaw suffers from vitiligo. While imprisoned at the New Dry Dock Detention
Centre, he received treatment briefly in Salmaniya Hospital and only once did the prison
authorities agree to give him the medicines brought by his family to the Detention Centre.
While in Jau Prison, he has been deprived of treatment and has not received any medicines.
He suffers from fainting, fatigue and poor hygiene due to the conditions in prison.
61.
Mr. Baddaw could not finish his education as he declined to change his major.
62.
Sayed Husain Saeed Alawi Ali Mohamed Al-Khabbaz is a Bahraini student born on
4 June 1998. He was 17 when arrested.
63.
On 22 July 2015, civil patrol officers arrested Mr. Al-Khabbaz from the car he was in
with his friends, after monitoring him following his departure from his house. No warrant
was presented, nor did the authorities give a reason for the arrest. Mr. Al-Khabbaz learned
after his arrest that he had been mentioned in other people’s confessions and was therefore
accused of illegal assembly and rioting.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
7
64.
The officers transferred Mr. Al-Khabbaz to the Criminal Investigation Directorate,5
where no interrogation took place, as all charges had already been written because of
accusations made against him in confessions by others. The officers threatened to beat Mr.
Al-Khabbaz if he refused to sign confessions. They tied his hands and blindfolded him. The
officers took his fingerprint to use as his signature on papers that he was not allowed to see.
He later understood that the papers contained confessions and charges against him.
65.
After three days at the Criminal Investigation Directorate, he was transferred to
pretrial detention at the Dry Dock Detention Centre.
66.
Mr. Al-Khabbaz was convicted in two cases: illegal assembly, rioting and burning
tires; and assault of a security officer. He was sentenced to three and seven years in prison,
respectively. Upon appeal, the first verdict was upheld and the second was reduced to five
years’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation.
67.
Throughout his trial and detention, Mr. Al-Khabbaz was denied access to his attorney.
He was also denied access to adequate time and facilities to prepare for the trial and was not
permitted to present evidence at trial. The confessions obtained through coercion from Mr.
Al-Khabbaz and other individuals were used against him in trial proceedings.
68.
Mr. Al-Khabbaz is being held at Jau Prison.
69.
Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s family filed one complaint with the National Human Rights
Institution, stating that he had completed half of his term and deserved to be released with
alternative punishment, and another complaint with the prison about his back and tooth pain
resulting from torture, but received no response.
70.
Although not infected with COVID-19, Mr. Al-Khabbaz was isolated for 10 days
without knowing the reason.
71.
Mr. Al-Khabbaz was unable to continue his high-school education after his
imprisonment.
Analysis of violations
72.
The source submits that all six individuals were students between 16 and 22 years of
age and were arrested without being presented with a warrant or informed of the reason and
were not brought promptly before a judge, in violation of article 9 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus rendering their detention arbitrary under
category I. Some arrests were accompanied by a warrantless search or raid.
73.
The source submits that some of the individuals were subjected to enforced
disappearance.
74.
All six individuals were subjected to unfair trials, denied access to legal counsel,
forced to make confessions under torture, which were used against them, and in some cases
sentenced in absentia. Bahrain failed to uphold fair trial norms, rendering all the individuals’
deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.
75.
The individuals have alleged that they were tortured, in violation of the obligations of
Bahrain under the Covenant and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The use of coerced confessions violates article 15 of
the Convention against Torture and is a criminal offence under article 209 of the Penal Code
of Bahrain, yet no investigation has been initiated into the allegations of torture and no
perpetrators have been held accountable.
76.
While all the individuals were arrested as students, at least four of them have been
denied their right to education and only high-school education is provided in prison. This
violates article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 13 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Constitution
of Bahrain.
5 He contacted his family in the morning and informed them where he was.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
8
GE.23-11048
77.
Five individuals have been denied access to adequate medical care, including COVID-
19 precautions and treatment in the case of infection. This demonstrates a general pattern of
violations by the Bahraini authorities of the right to health of the individuals in the detention
and prison systems, which is protected under article 12 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
78.
In five cases, the Government exercised discrimination based on religious sect or
political or other opinion, in violation of article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 2
(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 18 of
the Constitution of Bahrain.
Response from the Government
79.
On 23 December 2022, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government of Bahrain under its regular communication procedure, requesting a reply
by 21 February 2023. Following the Government’s request, an extension was granted until
21 March 2023.
80.
In its reply of 20 March 2023, the Government submitted the following information.
81.
Mr. Yusuf was involved with the formation of a terrorist organization with the purpose
of committing crimes to disrupt public order, endanger the safety and security of the
Kingdom, harm national unity and obstruct public authorities. During an investigation by the
Public Prosecutor, Mr. Yusuf was asked whether he had a lawyer and he said that he did not.
He was taken for observation by a forensic doctor and later confessed to involvement in
terrorist activities. The court charged Mr. Yusuf with several crimes relating to participating
in a terrorist group, supplying weapons to terrorists and attacks on law enforcement. The
Court of Appeal subsequently sentenced him to life in prison.
82.
Mr. Yusuf did not allege torture before the Public Prosecutor and the Special
Investigation Unit did not receive any complaint regarding Mr. Yusuf.
83.
Mr. Ansaif participated in several riots. In the first, a gas cylinder had been detonated
inside a car near a public park. He confessed to his involvement and investigations
corroborated his role in monitoring the violence. Mr. Ansaif was charged with possession of
flammable containers and other related charges. Following an initial sentence and an appeal,
he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The second riot, in which the defendants carried out
assaults resulting in the injury of law enforcement officers, led to subsequent charges against
Mr. Ansaif and a final sentence of two years in prison.
84.
The other riots occurred in prison and led to the attempted killing of law enforcement
officers. During investigation into these crimes, all legal guarantees and medical protocols
were followed. When asked whether he had a lawyer, Mr. Ansaif stated that he did not. The
Government submits that Mr. Ansaif admitted to damaging the window in a reception
building, thus allowing the rest of the inmates to escape and incite chaos. The Court of Appeal
sentenced Mr. Ansaif to 10 years in prison.
85.
The Special Investigation Unit acted on behalf of the allegations that Mr. Ansaif had
been beaten by law enforcement officers during the prison riots, convicting 10 of the 13
accused public security officers. Mr. Ansaif did not claim torture before the Public Prosecutor
and the Special Investigation Unit did not receive complaints regarding his being subjected
to torture or ill-treatment in 2013.
86.
The Government submits that it acted on a complaint received on 28 September 2021
from a family member of Mr. Ansaif, who alleged that Mr. Ansaif had been abused by law
enforcement officers in the Correction and Rehabilitation Centre (Jau Prison). The Special
Investigation Unit followed all appropriate legal and medical procedures and confirmed that
there was insufficient evidence to support the claim.
87.
Another complaint referred by the General Secretariat of the Office of the
Ombudsman regarding a Correction and Rehabilitation Centre officer’s bodily assault of Mr.
Ansaif was received and processed by the Special Investigation Unit. The Minor Court
sentenced the responsible officer to three months in prison.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
9
88.
From 14 February 2018 to 30 October 2022, Mr. Matar was involved in several
assaults on law enforcement officers, destruction and setting fire to the electoral headquarters
of a Bahraini candidate. During an interrogation, Mr. Matar was asked whether he had a
lawyer and he said that he did not. He was charged with several offences relating to disturbing
public security, violation of election procedures and possessing objects used to endanger the
lives of the public.
89.
The Court placed Mr. Matar in the Juvenile Welfare Centre, under the assurance that
reports would be submitted on him every six months from the date the ruling became final.
For his role in the 2020 incident, the Court of Appeal sentenced him to three years in prison
and a fine. For the election-related incident, Mr. Matar was sentenced to three years in prison
and a fine. Mr. Matar appealed his case, but it remains pending.
90.
Mr. Matar did not claim torture before the Public Prosecutor, nor did the Special
Investigation Unit receive any complaints about his being subjected to torture or ill-treatment
in 2020. On 8 February 2022, the Special Investigation Unit received a complaint submitted
by Mr. Matar’s family member to the Ombudsman claiming that Mr. Matar had been beaten
by a law enforcement officer while he was in Salmaniya Hospital. Mr. Matar refused to speak
to the Unit about the complaint. The Ombudsman found that Mr. Matar had killed one of the
inmates, which he denied. All medical and legal protocols were followed and the Unit ceased
examination of the complaint due to the absence of valid evidence.
91.
An additional notification from the Ombudsman detailed the physical assault of Mr.
Matar and two other inmates by four law enforcement officers in the Correction and
Rehabilitation Centre. The Special Investigation Unit took action and referred the officers to
the High Criminal Court, which sentenced them each to one year in prison.
92.
Mr. Abdulla participated in two riots, on 12 April and 13 April 2012. Following the
Public Prosecutor’s referral, the court charged Mr. Abdulla, who was a fugitive, with
gathering, rioting and possession of Molotov cocktails and sentenced him to six months in
prison for each event. The bail was set at 200 dinars for the first incident and 200 dinars for
the second incident. The Court of Appeal upheld the initial sentences.
93.
Mr. Abdulla was involved in two subsequent violent incidents on 19 December 2014
and 14 February 2016. These riots were linked to the planting of an explosive device and
injury to law enforcement officers. Following fair legal procedures, the court charged Mr.
Abdulla with invoking a terrorist purpose to attempt to kill law enforcement officers,
possession of explosives and other similar charges. Mr. Abdulla was sentenced to life in
prison and fined 2,782 dinars for the first riot. He received one year in prison for the second
riot. The Court of Appeal amended his first sentence to 15 years in prison and upheld the
second sentence. The Special Investigation Unit never received any complaints regarding Mr.
Abdulla.
94.
In a series of incidents, Mr. Badaw engaged in rioting and vandalism resulting in
property damage, endangering people’s lives, causing monetary damages, attempted murder
in execution of a terrorist purpose and assault of law enforcement officers. All legal
procedures were followed and the competent court charged and sentenced the defendants,
including Mr. Badaw, to six months in prison for the first incident and five years in prison
for the second incident. The defendants’ appeals resulted in an amended sentence of three
years’ imprisonment for the second incident. The subsequent incidents resulted in sentences
of three months, 10 years (amended following an appeal of the initial 15-year sentence), 2
years (amended from an initial 3-year sentence), 3 years (amended from a 7-year sentence),
1 year (granted on appeal), six months and 3 years, respectively. The Special Investigation
Unit did not receive any complaints regarding Mr. Badaw.
95.
Mr. Al-Khabbaz participated in two riots. In the first, a group set tires on fire and
placed an object simulating the shape of explosives at the scene. In the second, two law
enforcement officers were assaulted and injured. The necessary legal procedures were
followed. Because the investigation revealed that Mr. Al-Khabbaz had been involved in
planning the riots, he was charged with criminal arson and the use of explosives in a public
place. The court sentenced Mr. Al-Khabbaz to two years of imprisonment for the first
incident and seven years for the second incident. Following appeals, the verdict was upheld
for the first sentence and the second sentence was amended to five years in prison.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
10
GE.23-11048
96.
The Government concluded that the riots had been intended to cause terror, resulting
in additional charges. The court sentenced Mr. Al-Khabbaz to three years’ imprisonment.
Following an appeal, the Court amended the sentence to two years. The Special Investigation
Unit did not receive any complaints regarding Mr. Al-Khabbaz. The Government submits
that he was released to substitute his original sentence with one of the alternative sanctions
set out in article 2 of Law No. 18 of 2017.
97.
The Government stresses that the justice system in Bahrain provides the necessary
legal guarantees for all defendants, the most important being the independence of the
judiciary. The Government affirms that it provided all six individuals with the due process
rights guaranteed by the national legislation, from the process of inference and arrest through
the investigation, trial and issuance of the verdicts. As inmates, they were guaranteed health
and social care and the procedural rights set out in the Correction and Rehabilitation
Institution Law.
98.
The Government further submits that national redress mechanisms and oversight
institutions, such as the National Human Rights Institution, the Ombudsman and the Special
Investigation Unit continue to investigate and hold accountable officials who have committed
wilful acts that violate the law, the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or the
right to liberty and security or, through their negligence, caused torture or ill-treatment of
civilians, with the intent of taking legal, penal and disciplinary measures against them,
including those in leadership positions, whether civilians or military personnel.
Further comments from the source
99.
In its further comments of 31 March 2023, the source submits that the Government
fails to address the major violations, claiming only that the authorities took the “necessary
measures”. The Government includes charges and cases that are not addressed in the
complaint to divert attention from the actual violations.
100.
The source reiterates that all the individuals, even the minors, were interrogated
without the presence of their lawyers and were not promptly brought before a judge. While
the Government indicates that they asked Messrs. Yusuf, Ansaif and Matar whether they had
appointed a lawyer and were informed that they had not, it fails to mention that the court is
responsible for appointing a lawyer should the accused not have one.
101.
The families have submitted complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman and the
National Institution for Human Rights but have received no response.
102.
While the Government states that the officer who tortured Mr. Ansaif was sentenced
to prison following a complaint to the Special Investigation Unit, this is misleading, as the
officer avoided imprisonment by paying a fine. In relation to Mr. Matar, the source states that
the forensic examination was conducted while the signs of torture were wearing off and that
the Unit report falsely indicated that there had been no signs of torture.
103.
The Government indicates that the measures it took during the COVID-19 pandemic
had been successful, which is misleading, as there have been multiple COVID-19 outbreaks
in prisons due to the lack of precautionary measures and proper sanitation. Messrs. Yusuf,
Abdulla, Baddaw and Al-Khabbaz complained about the lack of precautionary measures and,
ultimately, Messrs. Yusuf and Abdulla tested positive for the virus. They were subjected to
medical negligence, which led to the deterioration of their health.
Discussion
104.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
105.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the six individuals is arbitrary,
the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.6 Mere assertions by the Government
6 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
11
that those lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s
allegations.
106.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Ansaif, Mr. Mattar and Mr. Al-Khabbaz were no
longer minors at the time of adoption of the present opinion. However, they were under 18
years of age at the time of their arrest and detention and their submissions will be considered
in the light of the obligations of Bahrain under international human rights law, including the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Category I
107.
The source submits that all six individuals were arrested without being presented with
a warrant or informed of the reason and were not brought promptly before a judge. The
Government does not respond to these specific allegations in its reply but makes general
submissions on the necessary measures and legal guarantees provided to them.
108.
Pursuant to article 9 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such
procedure as are established by law. To establish a legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the
authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.7 The
international norms on detention include the right to be presented with an arrest warrant or
the equivalent, except arrests that are made in flagrante delicto, under articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.8
109.
Weighing the submissions of both parties, the Working Group concludes that none of
the individuals were shown an arrest warrant or the equivalent. While neither the source nor
the Government have addressed the issue of in flagrante delicto, the Working Group has
consistently found in its jurisprudence that an offence is in flagrante delicto if the accused is
either apprehended during the commission of a crime or immediately thereafter or is arrested
in hot pursuit shortly after a crime has been committed.9 The Working Group concludes that
Mr. Yusuf was arrested in flagrante delicto during a security operation, thus exempting the
Government from the international norm of showing an arrest warrant, or the equivalent,
during the arrest.
110.
The source submits that none of the individuals were informed of the reasons for the
arrest at the time of their arrest, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant. The reasons for
arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest.10 As the Working Group has stated, an
arrest is arbitrary when it is carried out without informing the arrested person of the reasons
for the arrest.11
111.
According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge is to be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has noted,
48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee “promptly”
before a judge following his or her arrest; any longer delay must remain absolutely
exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.12 In the absence of information or
justification from the Government, the Working Group finds that none of the individuals was
brought promptly before a judicial authority, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
112.
In relation to Messrs. Ansaif, Matar and Al-Khabbaz, who were minors at the time of
their arrest, the Working Group recalls articles 37 (b) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, noting that, every child arrested and deprived of his or her liberty
7 See opinions No. 9/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 46/2019 and No. 59/2019.
8 Opinion No. 88/2017, para. 27.
9 Opinions No. 36/2017, para. 85; No. 53/2014, para. 42; No. 46/2012, para. 30; No. 67/2011, para. 30;
and No. 61/2011, paras. 48 and 49. See also E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.3, paras. 39 and 72 (a).
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27. See also opinion No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59.
11 Opinions No. 10/2015, para. 34; No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 59/2019, para. 46; and No. 46/2020, para.
40.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33. See also CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1,
paras. 39 and 40.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
12
GE.23-11048
should be brought before a competent authority within 24 hours to examine the legality of
the deprivation of liberty or its continuation.13
113.
The source submits that some of these individuals were subjected to enforced
disappearance of varying length. The Government does not deny this allegation and, in its
late reply, lists the number of visits and video calls of the six individuals from the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic until 8 March 2023. Acknowledging these submissions, the Working
Group observes that, except for Mr. Matar, who was arrested in 2020, the remaining five
individuals were arrested between 2013 and 2017. As such, the Government’s submissions
do not appear to contradict the source’s submissions. The Working Group thus finds Messrs.
Yusuf, Ansaif and Abdulla were subjected to enforced disappearance, which is an aggravated
form of arbitrary detention.14
114.
It appears that the individuals were unable to effectively exercise their right to
challenge their detention so that a court could decide without delay on its legality in
accordance with article 9 (4) of the Covenant. Holding persons so that they have no access
or restricted access to the outside world, in particular to their family and lawyers, violates
their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court under article 9 (4) of
the Covenant. 15 Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal
liberty16 and is essential to ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Given that the individuals
were unable to challenge their detention, their right to an effective remedy under article 8 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was also
violated.
115.
Further, as the Human Rights Committee has observed, giving prompt and regular
access to family members and to independent medical personnel and lawyers is an essential
and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture and for protection against arbitrary
detention and infringement of personal security.17 Accordingly, the Working Group finds that
these individuals’ right to contact with the outside world was denied, contravening rule 58 of
the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules)18 and principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
116.
In addition, the source makes unrefuted submissions about various warrantless
searches conducted by authorities in the homes of several of the individuals and lists the items
confiscated and property damaged during this process. While it is unclear if any material
seized during these illegal searches was used during the legal proceedings, such conduct
further demonstrates that the authorities’ failure to follow proper procedures compounded
the arbitrary nature of the detentions.
117.
For the reasons set out above, the Working Group finds that the detention of the six
individuals is arbitrary under category I.
Category III
118.
The source argues that all six individuals were subjected to fair trial violations linked
to their right to access legal counsel. Mr. Yusuf was interrogated without a lawyer. During
his interview at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, six months after his arrest, a lawyer was
present but not allowed to speak. This was also the case during his trial. Messrs. Ansaif,
Abdulla and Al-Khabbaz were denied a lawyer throughout their investigations and trials. Mr.
Matar was not allowed to communicate with his lawyer throughout his investigation and trial.
Mr. Baddaw was interrogated without a lawyer and his lawyer was not allowed to speak
during his trial. In relation to Messrs. Yusuf, Ansaif and Matar, the Government submits that
13 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 90.
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17. See also opinion No. 37/2021,
para. 65.
15 See opinions No. 32/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 45/2019, No. 59/2019, No. 5/2020 and No. 41/2020.
16 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58. See also opinion No. 84/2020,
para. 69.
18 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74 and 75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
13
they were asked whether they had a lawyer and they said that they did not. In its further
submissions, the source adds that the Government omits mentioning that the court is
responsible for appointing a lawyer.
119.
The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to
legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, including
immediately after their apprehension, and that such access is to be provided without delay.19
The Working Group considers that the source has established that all six individuals did not
have adequate access to a lawyer from the outset of their detention and at other key stages,
including during their interrogation. As a result, they were not afforded the right to adequate
time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of
their choosing under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
120.
In the case of Messrs. Ansaif, Matar and Al-Khabbaz, the Working Group recalls their
rights under articles 37 (d) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to
prompt access to legal assistance and to legal assistance in the preparation of their defence.
States should ensure that a child is guaranteed legal or other appropriate assistance from the
outset of the proceedings, in the preparation and presentation of the defence, and until all
appeals and/or reviews are exhausted.20
121.
The source provided detailed descriptions of alleged severe acts of physical and
psychological torture inflicted upon the individuals and specific refutations of the
Government’s claims in its further submissions. The Government submits that Messrs.
Yusuf, Ansaif and Matar did not allege torture or ill-treatment before the Public Prosecutor
or complain to the Special Investigation Unit following their arrests and that the Unit did not
receive any complaints about Messrs. Badaw, Abdulla and Al-Khabbaz. While the
Government submits that Messrs. Yusuf and Ansaif were observed by a forensic doctor, it
does not specify the timing or outcome. In relation to Mr. Yusuf, the Government’s response
fails to mention that he was presented before the Public Prosecutor for the first time six
months after his arrest. His family noticed signs of torture when they visited him for the first
time, two months after his arrest in 2017. In relation to Mr. Matar, the source states that a
forensic examination was conducted after the signs of torture were wearing off and that the
report falsely indicated that there were no signs of torture. His lawyer observed during the
session at the Public Prosecutor’s Office that he was unable to speak due to torture. In its
further submissions, the source submits that families have submitted complaints to the
Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Institution but that there has been no response.
Mr. Baddaw’s family filed several complaints with the Ombudsman and the National Human
Rights Institution but they did not receive any response and Mr. Al-Khabbaz’s family filed
one complaint to the National Human Rights Institution and another to the prison, regarding
back and teeth pain resulting from torture, but did not receive any response.
122.
The Working Group reiterates concerns about the independence and effectiveness of
the Special Investigation Unit.21 In its concluding observations issued in 2017, the Committee
against Torture noted that the investigative bodies of Bahrain, including the Ombudsman and
the Special Investigation Unit, were not independent or effective. The Committee noted that,
since their establishment in 2012, the Ombudsman and the Special Investigation Unit had
had little or no effect and that the authorities had provided negligible information regarding
the outcome of the activities of the Ombudsman and the Unit.22
123.
The Working Group concludes that the source has presented a credible prima facie
case that the individuals were subjected to physical and psychological torture and ill-
treatment. The alleged conduct violates article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 7 of the Covenant. In relation to Messrs. Ansaif, Matar and Al-Khabbaz,
the Working Group recalls their rights under article 37 (a) and (c) of the Convention on the
19 A/HRC/30/37, principle 9 and guideline 8; Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment
No. 24 (2019), para. 95 (e); and CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, para. 44 (b).
20 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 49; and the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), rule
15.
21 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 28; and opinion No. 4/2021, para. 72.
22 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 28.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
14
GE.23-11048
Rights of the Child and articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.23 The use of
physical or psychological force on a child is a serious abuse of power lacking in necessity
and proportionality.24 The Working Group recalls that the Committee against Torture has
noted its concern about reports of torture of individuals who were minors at the time of arrest
and about the incarceration of minors in Bahrain.25
124.
The source submits that Messrs. Yusuf, Ansaif, Matar, Abdulla and Baddaw were
forced to confess or sign statements made under torture and duress and that those statements
or confessions were used against them. Mr Al-Khabbaz was forced to sign a confession under
the threat of torture. His hands were tied and he was blindfolded and threatened with a beating
if he did not sign the confession. The burden is on the Government to prove that the
statements of the individuals were given freely,26 but it has not done so with any specificity.
The Working Group is persuaded by the source’s submissions that the six individuals
confessed under torture and duress. The Working Group has repeatedly found that the
admission into evidence of a statement obtained through torture renders the entire
proceedings unfair.27 Confessions made in the absence of legal counsel are not admissible as
evidence in criminal proceedings.28 Consequently, their right to be presumed innocent under
article 14 (2) of the Covenant and not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3)
(g) of the Covenant have been violated, as has principle 21 of the Body of Principles, which
protects a detainee from self-incrimination or compelled confessions.
125.
The Working Group recalls the Committee against Torture’s finding that the
intentional infliction of physical or psychological pressure to obtain a confession also
violated the obligations of Bahrain under articles 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against
Torture. Moreover, the prosecutor was obliged to investigate and report the torture and forced
confessions in accordance with guidelines 12 and 16 of the Guidelines on the Role of
Prosecutors.29 The Working Group has found that the admission of evidence from third
parties extracted through torture also violates article 14 (3) (g) of the Convention on Civil
and Political Rights.30
126.
The prohibition against the use of self-incriminating confessions is amplified when
the victim is a child.31 In the cases of Messrs. Ansaif, Matar and Al-Khabbaz, the Working
Group recalls the right to be presumed of innocence under article 40 (2) (b) (i) and the right
not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 40 (2) (b) (iv) of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child.32 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern about
the arbitrary detention of children, reports of the ill-treatment of children by police and in
detention centres and the alleged use of torture by law enforcement officials to elicit
confessions from children in detention in Bahrain.33
127.
The Working Group refers to the source’s submission detailing the injuries arising
from torture, the health issues linked to the conditions of detention and the medical
negligence relating to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in the detention facilities,
which led to the deterioration of the six individuals’ health. The Working Group contrasts
the severity and detail with which the source addresses these allegations with the overall
general response of the Government. When the Government does respond regarding the
specific medical treatment provided, the source, in its further submissions, either denies the
Government’s claims or explains the inadequacy of the medical care received. While the
Government, in its late reply, sets out the general preventative measures taken to combat the
pandemic, it does not engage with the individual allegations relating to its impact on the six
23 Opinions No. 41/2015, para. 42; and No. 2/2021, para. 74.
24 Opinion No. 3/2017, para. 30; and CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, paras. 26 and 27.
25 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, paras. 42 and 43.
26 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41.
27 See opinions No. 43/2012, No. 34/2015, No. 52/2018 and No. 59/2019.
28 See opinions No. 14/2019 and No. 59/2019. See also E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e); A/HRC/45/16,
para. 53; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), paras. 58–60.
29 Opinions No. 47/2017, para. 29; and No. 63/2020, para. 42.
30 Opinion No. 34/1995, paras. 6–8 (a).
31 Opinion No. 27/2014, paras. 27–30.
32 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 16.
33 CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, paras. 26 and 27.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
15
individuals’ health and the risk posed by their conditions of detention. The Working Group
recalls that the denial of medical care can constitute a form of torture.34 Given the serious
allegations of torture and ill-treatment, the Working Group refers the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
128.
Taking these factors into account, the Working Group finds that the violations linked
to the six individuals’ conditions of detention significantly undermined their ability to
properly defend themselves. The Working Group has consistently concluded in its opinions
that, when it is not possible for a person who is subjected to torture or other forms of ill-
treatment or punishment to prepare an adequate defence before the judicial proceedings, this
amounts to a fair trial violation.35
129.
The source also argues that Messrs. Yusuf, Ansaif, Matar and Al-Khabbaz were not
allowed to present evidence in their own defence during their trials. The Working Group
notes that the Government does not respond to this specific allegation and the Working Group
thus concludes that the principle of the equality of arms under article 14 (3) (e) of the
Covenant was violated. The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers.36
130.
In the case of Mr. Ansaif, reportedly, he was with his family members at the time of
the incident in Budaiya and the allegations against him have been fabricated. The
Government does not specifically rebut this submission. While the Working Group does not
substitute itself for the role of a domestic fact finder, revelations that key prosecutorial
evidence has been fabricated can be the basis for finding a due process violation.37
131.
The source argues that several individuals were sentenced in absentia. The Working
Group refers to the source’s submissions that Messrs. Abdulla and Baddaw were repeatedly
sentenced in absentia. The Government does not respond on this specific issue. According to
the Human Rights Committee, proceedings in the absence of the accused are compatible with
article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant only if the necessary steps are taken to summon accused
persons in a timely manner and to inform them beforehand about the date and place of their
trial and to request their attendance.38 In relation to Mr. Abdulla, the Working Group finds a
violation of article 14 (3) (d). In relation to Mr. Baddaw, the source has not provided
sufficient information for the Working Group to make this assessment. The Working Group
records its concern about the length of the sentences reportedly imposed in absentia: over 20
years for Mr. Baddaw and life imprisonment for Mr. Abdulla.
132.
The Working Group concludes that the violations of the individuals’ fair trial and due
process rights are of such gravity as to render their detention arbitrary under category III.
133.
While the Working Group recognizes that States have an obligation to investigate and
prosecute those responsible for offences, it wishes to emphasize that this opinion is adopted
without prejudice to the guilt or otherwise of the six individuals. States parties to the
Covenant must uphold its provisions, violations of which have been identified in the present
case.39
Category V
134.
While the source submits that the Government of Bahrain discriminated against five
of the individuals on the basis of their religious sect or political or other opinion, the source
does not adequately substantiate these allegations. As such, the Working Group is unable to
reach a conclusion on the discriminatory nature of their detention under category V.
34 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18; and opinions No. 20/2022, para. 104; and No. 65/2022.
35 Opinions No. 32/2019, para. 42; No. 59/2019, para. 69; and No. 65/2022, para. 117.
36 Opinion No. 4/2021, para. 101.
37 Opinion No. 59/2016, para. 63.
38 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 36.
39 Opinion No. 62/2020, para. 77.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
16
GE.23-11048
Concluding remarks
135.
The Working Group is concerned by the severity of the torture alleged by the six
individuals (some of whom were minors), the ongoing impact of the injuries suffered by them
as a result and their other health issues. The Working Group reminds the Government of its
obligations under article 10 (1) of the Covenant and of rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules, which state that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with
humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity, including by being allowed to enjoy the
same standards of health care available in the community.40
136.
The Working Group also refers to the source’s submission that all six individuals were
students when arrested and that some of them are being denied their right to education, as
only high-school education is provided in prison. While the Government does not address
this issue, the Working Group recalls that the right to education is enshrined in article 26 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the Covenant, articles 13 and 14 of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 7 of the
Constitution of Bahrain. The Working Group calls upon the Government to take measures to
reverse or otherwise redress any prejudice that these six individuals are suffering in this
regard.
137.
These cases follow the pattern of numerous other cases brought before the Working
Group in recent years concerning the arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Bahrain: warrantless,
pretrial detention with limited access to judicial review, denial of access to lawyers, forced
confession, torture and ill-treatment and denial of medical care.41 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.42
138.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a country visit to
Bahrain. The Working Group visited Bahrain in October 2001 and considers that it is now an
appropriate time to conduct another visit.
Disposition
139.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Ahmed Ali Ahmed Yusuf, Alaa Mansoor Mohamed
Redha Ahmed Ansaif, Husain Ali Hasan Ali Mohamed Matar, Husain Ali Jaafar
Mohamed Abdulla, Mohamed Ali Mohsen Abdulla Baddaw and Sayed Husain Saeed
Alawi Ali Mohamed Al-Khabbaz, being in contravention of articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 7, 9, 14 and
16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls
within categories I and III.
140.
The Working Group requests the Government of Bahrain to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of the six individuals without delay and bring it into conformity with
the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
141.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the six individuals immediately and accord
them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.43 In the current context of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the threat
that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take
urgent action to ensure their immediate release.
142.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the six
40 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
41 See opinions No. 31/2019, No. 59/2019, No. 73/2019, No. 5/2020, No. 41/2020 and No. 87/2020.
42 Opinion No. 47/2012, para. 22.
43 See deliberation No. 10 (A/HRC/45/16, annex I).
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/25
GE.23-11048
17
individuals, including the allegation that they were tortured, and to take appropriate measures
against those responsible for the violation of their rights.
143.
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 the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers, for appropriate action.
144.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
145.
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 the six individuals have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the six
individuals;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the six
individuals’ rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Bahrain with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
146.
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.
147.
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.
148.
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 3 April 2023]
44 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.