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.24-08014 (E) 140524 150514
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-ninth session, 18–27 March 2024
Opinion No. 16/2024 concerning Muntadhar Abdali Mohamed Khatam,
Murtadha Abdali Mohamed Khatam and Mohamed Abdali Mohamed
Hasan Khatam (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 22 December 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Bahrain a communication concerning Muntadhar Abdali
Mohamed Khatam, Murtadha Abdali Mohamed Khatam and Mohamed Abdali Mohamed
Hasan Khatam. The Government replied to the communication on 16 February 2024. The
State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(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,
* Miriam Estrada Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
General Assembly
Distr.: General
15 May 2024
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
2
GE.24-08014
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Muntadhar Abdali Mohamed Khatam is a citizen of Bahrain, born on 28 December
1994. His usual place of residence is in Salmabad, Bahrain.
5.
Murtadha Abdali Mohamed Khatam is a citizen of Bahrain, born on 28 December
1994.
6.
Mohamed Abdali Mohamed Hasan Khatam is a citizen of Bahrain, born on 31 October
1992.
(i)
Context
7.
The source reports that Muntadhar and Murtadha Khatam are twin brothers and that
Mohamed Khatam is their older brother.
8.
According to the source, the arrest and detention of the three brothers demonstrate a
pattern of warrantless arrests and the use of torture by Bahraini officials to extract confessions,
in violation of international law. The methods of torture reported include threats of electric
shocks, threats of sexual assault, and physical beatings.
9.
It is highlighted that all three individuals were high-school students when they were
arrested and that they were detained for participating in peaceful protests on the pretext that
they had participated in an “unlawful assembly”. In addition, Murtadha and Mohamed
Khatam received a six-month prison sentence each for “insulting the judge” by not standing
when the judge entered. Murtadha Khatam was subjected to enforced disappearance and
solitary confinement for retaliatory purposes related to a peaceful strike that he was carrying
out inside the prison.
10.
The source highlights that the three brothers were arrested without an arrest, search or
raid warrant and that they were convicted on charges related to violent protest, having been
coerced into signing false confessions under duress and torture.
11.
The source notes that neither the brothers nor their family members have access to the
case files.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
a.
Muntadhar Abdali Mohamed Khatam
12.
The source reports that Muntadhar Khatam was first arrested by the riot police on
22 October 2012, when he was 17 years old, during a raid on a neighbour’s house. The police
did not provide any reason for the arrest or present an arrest or search warrant.
13.
According to the source, while taking Muntadhar Khatam out of the house, the riot
police threatened to shoot the homeowners if they continued to shout. When the neighbours
asked where Muntadhar Khatam was being taken, the police mentioned the Criminal
Investigations Department.
14.
The source reports that Muntadhar Khatam was denied access to a lawyer and was not
assigned one. He was sentenced to one year in prison for taking part in demonstrations calling
for the overthrow of the Government and was released on 5 July 2013. Following his arrest
and release, Muntadhar Khatam, who was a high-school student at the time, ceased attending
school for fear of persecution.
15.
On 5 April 2015, while Muntadhar Khatam was out with his twin brother, Murtadha
Khatam, and their friends buying dinner, they were reportedly surrounded by members of the
security forces. Muntadhar and Murtadha Khatam were pursued and arrested near a relative’s
house, and their relative had a confrontation with the security officers, while their friends’
relatives attempted to intervene. As the security officers were leaving, they used stun
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
3
grenades and tear gas to disperse the relatives. The source adds that the authorities did not
provide a reason for Muntadhar Khatam’s arrest. Nor did they present an arrest warrant.
16.
Reportedly, Muntadhar Khatam and his twin brother were transferred to the Criminal
Investigations Department and were tortured on the way. Muntadhar Khatam telephoned his
family members on the day of the arrest, after arriving at the Criminal Investigations
Department, and informed them of his location, but he was unable to state the reason for his
arrest, as the call was cut off.
17.
The source reports that, in another telephone call, Muntadhar Khatam disclosed the
charges to his family after being forced to do so by the authorities and told his relatives that
the Criminal Investigations Department had prepared the case for trial. Muntadhar Khatam
was charged with unlawful assembly (for which he had already been sentenced in absentia,
before his arrest, as his family later discovered), assaulting security personnel, wounding a
security officer and blocking roads with tyres.
18.
The source submits that Muntadhar Khatam was subjected to physical and
psychological torture during a three-day interrogation at the Criminal Investigations
Department building, and no lawyer was allowed to attend. He was subjected to severe
beatings, as well as threats of electrocution and sexual assault if he did not confess to the
charges. Due to the severe beatings, Muntadhar Khatam confessed. It is reported that he
sustained visible injuries and torture marks and that he did not receive medical treatment.
19.
Reportedly, on 8 April 2015, Muntadhar Khatam was transferred to the Public
Prosecution Office and then to the Dry Dock Detention Centre.
20.
The source submits that Muntadhar Khatam did not have access to a lawyer, as neither
he nor his family had the financial means to hire a private attorney, and he was not provided
with a lawyer by the court. He did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for his
trial and was unable to present evidence and challenge the evidence presented against him.
21.
Muntadhar Khatam was reportedly sentenced in absentia to one year in prison for
unlawful assembly, five years for assaulting security personnel, which was reduced to three
years after an appeal, which he filed himself, seven years for wounding a security officer and
three years for blocking roads with tyres, bringing his total sentence to 14 years.
22.
The source submits that, on 13 June 2022, while Muntadhar Khatam was being held
at the Dry Dock Detention Centre, he was taken for an ophthalmologist’s appointment at
Salmaniya Hospital and was found to have poor eyesight in both eyes. A member of
Muntadhar Khatam’s family went twice to the Dry Dock Detention Centre to obtain the
results of Muntadhar Khatam’s medical examination, but the prison administration refused
to release them, claiming that it had not yet received them.
23.
Reportedly, in July 2022, during a video call, Muntadhar Khatam informed a member
of his family that the ophthalmologist had given him a handwritten note with the examination
results. His relative took a photograph of the note in order to purchase suitable eyeglasses,
which Muntadhar Khatam was allowed to receive in September 2022.
24.
It is submitted that, on 14 May 2023, officers at Jau Prison raided the prison building
on the pretext of conducting an inspection and that they damaged detainees’ belongings.
Following this incident, some detainees, including Muntadhar Khatam, protested the damage
done to their belongings. In response, the officers beat and used pepper spray on the detainees,
causing injuries and burns to some of them. Moreover, the officers denied those who had
protested the raid the opportunity to take certain examinations in the second semester of the
academic year. As a result, Muntadhar Khatam failed the academic year, which he is
currently repeating.
25.
The source adds that Muntadhar Khatam remains unaware of the specific details of
his alleged crimes and is currently serving his sentence at Jau Prison.
b.
Murtadha Abdali Mohamed Khatam
26.
The source reports that Murtadha Khatam is Muntadhar Khatam’s twin brother.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
4
GE.24-08014
27.
Reportedly, he was first arrested near his home by the security forces in 2012 when
he was 17 years old. No arrest warrant was presented at the time of his arrest.
28.
It is reported that, on that occasion, Murtadha Khatam was taken to an unknown
location, where he was severely beaten while being interrogated on charges of participating
in protests. He was subsequently transferred to various locations, including the Isa police
station, the Criminal Investigations Department and a detention centre, where he stayed for
three and a half months before being released without having been sentenced.
29.
The source reports that Murtadha Khatam was arrested for a second time in March
2013, during a peaceful demonstration in Sitrah, when he was 18 years old. On that occasion,
he was hit directly in the face by a stun grenade, causing him to lose two of his teeth and his
face to swell. For that reason, Murtadha Khatam was taken by ambulance to the hospital,
where he received three stitches to the inside and outside of his mouth.
30.
It is asserted that Murtadha Khatam telephoned one of his relatives two weeks after
his arrest, but he was unable to speak properly due to his injuries.
31.
The source notes that Murtadha Khatam was released on 5 July 2013 without having
been convicted or sentenced. After his arrest, Murtadha Khatam stopped attending school for
fear of being pursued or prosecuted.
32.
According to the source, on 5 April 2015, Murtadha Khatam was arrested when he
was with his twin brother, Muntadhar Khatam, and their friends. The twin brothers and their
friends had gone out to buy dinner when they were surrounded by members of the security
forces. Murtadha and Muntadhar Khatam were pursued and arrested near a relative’s house,
but the authorities did not provide a reason for Murtadha Khatam’s arrest or present an arrest
warrant. One of their relatives had a confrontation with the security officers, and members of
their friends’ families attempted to intervene. As the security officers were leaving, they used
stun grenades and tear gas to disperse the relatives.
33.
It is submitted that Murtadha Khatam was taken with Muntadhar Khatam to the
Criminal Investigations Department and that they were tortured on the way.
34.
The source affirms that Murtadha Khatam telephoned one of his relatives on the day
of the arrest, after arriving at the Criminal Investigations Department, and provided his
location, but he was unable to state the reason for his arrest, as the call was cut off.
35.
It is submitted that, during Murtadha Khatam’s interrogation at the Criminal
Investigations Department, he was severely beaten and threatened with electrocution and
sexual assault if he did not confess to the charges against him. He was questioned by officers
as to the whereabouts of his older brother, Mohamed Khatam, who was a fugitive at the time.
The interrogation and torture of Murtadha Khatam lasted for three days, without the presence
of a lawyer, until he was transferred to the Dry Dock Detention Centre on 8 April 2015.
Murtadha Khatam was not examined by a doctor during this period.
36.
It is reported that, later, Murtadha Khatam’s relatives received a summons requesting
him to appear at the Public Prosecution Office, with no reason provided and without regard
to the fact that he was detained at the time. Murtadha Khatam was not brought before a judge
within 48 hours.
37.
The source reports that Murtadha Khatam’s relatives found out later that he had been
sentenced in absentia to one year in prison for the crime of unlawful assembly.
38.
According to the source, two weeks after his transfer to the Dry Dock Detention
Centre, Murtadha Khatam was able to meet with his family.
39.
Moreover, it is submitted that, like his twin brother, Murtadha Khatam did not have a
lawyer, as his family could not afford to hire a private attorney, and he was not appointed a
lawyer by the court. Murtadha Khatam did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare
for his trial and was unable to present evidence or challenge the evidence presented against
him.
40.
It is reported that Murtadha Khatam faced multiple charges and received a sentence
amounting to 15 years and six months of imprisonment, which was reduced to 13 years and
six months on appeal. He was sentenced to two years in prison for unlawful assembly (one
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
5
year for each of two counts), five years for manufacturing fake explosives, which was
reduced to three years after an appeal that he filed himself, five years for assaulting security
personnel, three years for burning tyres and six months for insulting a judge. Murtadha
Khatam is currently detained at Jau Prison.
41.
Murtadha Khatam’s visits were gradually reduced in frequency from weekly to
biweekly and, eventually, to once a month. Ever since the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic, there have been no visits, due to the strict restrictions.
42.
The source reports that, on 5 April 2021, detainees in buildings 12 and 13 of Jau Prison
started a sit-in to protest the poor prison conditions, following the death of a detainee from
medical negligence and lack of care after a COVID-19 outbreak. On 17 April 2021, the prison
police attacked the detainees in buildings 12 and 13, including Murtadha Khatam, to break
up the sit-in, using excessive force and hitting them with clubs, in what became known as
“Bloody Saturday”. Murtadha Khatam was hit on the head and suffered swelling as a result.
After the attack, 34 detainees, including Murtadha Khatam, were handcuffed and transferred
to an unknown location, where they were denied contact with their families or lawyers, until
5 May 2021.
43.
The source notes that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) issued a statement about the event, condemning it and expressing concern
over the use of unnecessary and disproportionate force by the special police forces to
dismantle a peaceful protest at Jau Prison on 17 April 2021 and calling upon the Government
of Bahrain to conduct a comprehensive and effective investigation, to provide information
on detainees held in solitary confinement, to take effective steps to ensure the timely
provision of medical treatment to prison inmates, when needed, and to consider releasing
more detainees, including political prisoners, to reduce overcrowding in prisons.2
44.
The source reports that, on 14 May 2023, officers at Jau Prison raided the prison
building and damaged the belongings of the detainees. Following the incident, some
detainees, including Murtadha Khatam, protested the damage to their belongings. In addition,
like his twin brother, Murtadha Khatam was denied the opportunity to take some of his
examinations in the second semester of the academic year, in retaliation, leading him to fail
the academic year, which he is now repeating.
45.
The source submits that, recently, Murtadha Khatam has been experiencing pain in
his left hand, prompting him to request a transfer to the prison clinic. At the prison clinic, the
doctor recommended that he be transferred to the hospital for an X-ray of his hand, but the
prison administration has refused to transfer him.
46.
It is submitted that, on 7 August 2023, Murtadha Khatam joined his fellow detainees
in a hunger strike to demand respect for their fundamental rights, including proper medical
care, fewer restrictions on visits, increased time outside their cells, permission for group
prayer and an end to the isolation of some detainees.
47.
Reportedly, in October 2023, as the strike had been suspended, Murtadha Khatam’s
family visited him and noticed that his health had deteriorated considerably and that he was
experiencing tremors. Murtadha Khatam was taken to the prison clinic only after numerous
requests, but he did not receive treatment there. The prison administration insisted that
Murtadha Khatam shave his head entirely before being taken to a hospital outside the prison,
but he refused. Consequently, the administration denied him the necessary treatment, and it
is still refusing to take him to the hospital.
c.
Mohamed Abdali Mohamed Hasan Khatam
48.
The source reports that Mohamed Khatam is the older brother of Murtadha and
Muntadhar Khatam. Like his brothers, he was targeted by the police.
49.
It is reported that Mohamed Khatam was still attending school when he was first
arrested during a protest in Sitrah in 2012. During his arrest, he fell and broke his left hand,
and officers continued to beat him until he sustained additional fractures in his hand.
2 See https://news.un.org/ar/story/2021/04/1075352 (in Arabic).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
6
GE.24-08014
50.
The source asserts that, on that occasion, Mohamed Khatam was transferred to the
military hospital, where he underwent an operation during which metal rods were inserted
into his hand. It is submitted that Mohamed Khatam was supposed to continue his treatment
and have the metal rods removed, but the prison authorities did not provide him with the
required treatment.
51.
Mohamed Khatam was reportedly sentenced to a month in prison. He was released
after completing his sentence, but the authorities did not provide his relatives with any
medical documents or reports concerning his medical condition for the purpose of his
continued treatment.
52.
The source explains that, following his arrest, Mohamed Khatam, who was a
high-school student at the time, stopped attending school for fear of being pursued or
prosecuted.
53.
According to the source, Mohamed Khatam later became a wanted person. He was
pursued by the authorities several times, but they failed to arrest him. Mohamed Khatam and
his family did not find out about his status as a wanted person until late 2014, when some of
his friends, who had been summoned following the arrests of his brothers, told him.
Subsequently, Mohamed Khatam avoided staying in his house, as it was frequently raided.
54.
It is asserted that, on 5 May 2015, a man wearing plain clothes entered Mohamed
Khatam’s house 15 minutes after the latter’s arrival. Thereafter, a number of riot police
officers surrounded and entered the house and arrested Mohamed Khatam without presenting
an arrest or search warrant.
55.
The source adds that the officers placed Mohamed Khatam inside a minibus and
returned to the house moments later, requesting that his family give them his telephone.
However, one of his relatives refused to hand it over to the officers and, after five hours of
trying to find the telephone, they left without it.
56.
According to the source, following his arrest, Mohamed Khatam was transferred to
the Criminal Investigations Department building, where he stayed for a week. He telephoned
his family on the day of the arrest, informing them of his location and requesting clothes.
57.
It is reported that Mohamed Khatam was not brought before a judge within 48 hours
of his arrest. Moreover, his interrogation at the Criminal Investigations Department lasted for
three days, without the presence of a lawyer, during which time he was severely beaten on
parts of his body usually covered by clothing, tortured and threatened with electrocution and
rape. Mohamed Khatam was not examined by a doctor.
58.
It is alleged that the Criminal Investigations Department officers wanted Mohamed
Khatam to confess that he had contacts outside the country, which he initially denied, since
he does not know anyone abroad and has never travelled in his life. However, after enduring
severe and ongoing torture, Mohamed Khatam agreed to sign the confessions put before him,
without knowing their content. On 12 May 2015, he was transferred to the Dry Dock
Detention Centre.
59.
The source reports that, two weeks after his arrest, Mohamed Khatam was allowed to
see members of his family, who found him to be tired and in pain.
60.
It is reported that, like his younger brothers, Mohamed Khatam did not have a lawyer,
as his family did not have the necessary financial means, and he was not appointed a lawyer
by the court. Mohamed Khatam did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for his
trial and was unable to present evidence and challenge the evidence presented against him.
61.
The source explains that Mohamed Khatam was charged with the following offences:
unlawful assembly and rioting, assaulting security personnel, manufacturing fake explosives,
blocking roads with burning tyres and insulting a judge in court by not standing when the
judge entered.
62.
For these offences, a few months after his arrest on 5 May 2015, Mohamed Khatam
was reportedly sentenced to a total of 16 years, six months and 10 days of imprisonment. He
was sentenced to five years in prison for manufacturing fake explosives, six months for
insulting the judge and ten days for vandalism, for which he was allegedly forced to sign a
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
7
confession when he could not pay a fine of 50 Bahraini dinars. The details of the sentences
for the other offences are unknown.
63.
It is reported that, due to the court’s denial of Mohamed Khatam’s right to access to a
court-appointed attorney, and his inability to hire a private one, he filed his own appeal. The
Court of Appeal reduced Mohamed Khatam’s sentence for manufacturing fake explosives
from five to three years and upheld the other sentences, thereby reducing his total sentence
to 14 years in prison. He is currently serving his sentence at Jau Prison.
64.
The source adds that, in 2022, Mohamed Khatam had a toothache and requested a
transfer to the prison clinic. However, he was transferred only a year later, when the staff
performed a tooth extraction. He subsequently had another toothache and was again taken to
the clinic, where he had a filling. However, the filling fell out a week later, leaving him in
pain once more.
65.
Lastly, it is submitted that, on 14 May 2023, officers at Jau Prison raided the prison
to conduct an inspection and damaged the detainees’ belongings. Subsequently, some
detainees, including Mohamed Khatam, protested the damage to their belongings. As a result,
he, like his younger brothers, was among the detainees assaulted for protesting, and he was
denied the opportunity to take certain examinations in the second semester of the academic
year, causing him to fail that academic year, which he is currently repeating.
(iii)
Legal analysis
66.
The source argues that the detention of the Khatam brothers is arbitrary, insofar as it
falls within categories I, II and III of the categories used by the Working Group in accordance
with its methods of work.
a.
Category I
67.
The source asserts that the Khatam brothers faced violations of their right to due
process, as they were arrested without being presented with an arrest warrant or being
informed of the reason for their arrest and were not brought promptly before a judge, in
violation of articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and of rule 7 of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
68.
The source concludes that, in the light of the above, the detention of the Khatam
brothers is arbitrary under category I.
b.
Category II
69.
The source argues that the Khatam brothers were arrested for their participation in
peaceful protests and exercising their rights and freedoms guaranteed under international law,
specifically, their right to freedom of expression, in violation of articles 18, 19 and 20 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant. For
this reason, their detention is arbitrary under category II.
c.
Category III
70.
According to the source, Murtadha Khatam was subjected to periods of enforced
disappearance of varying lengths, as he was deprived of his liberty against his will by
government officials who failed to disclose his fate and whereabouts,3 in violation of rules 58
and 61 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
71.
It is argued that, while forcibly disappeared, Murtadha Khatam was in solitary
confinement for retaliatory purposes related to a peaceful strike in which he was participating,
in violation of rules 36, 37, 39, 43, 44 and 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
72.
The source claims that, considering that two of the individuals in the present complaint
had previously been arbitrarily arrested when they were children, Bahrain violated article 37
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which it is a party.
3 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, para. 21.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
8
GE.24-08014
73.
In addition, it is asserted that the three brothers were subjected to unfair trials, denied
access to legal counsel and convicted on the basis of confessions obtained through torture.
Moreover, Muntadhar and Murtadha Khatam were sentenced in absentia.
74.
The source argues that the three brothers were tortured, in violation of the obligations
of Bahrain under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment and the Covenant and in violation of rules 1 and 43 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules. The use of coerced confessions in all three cases is in violation of article 15
of the Convention against Torture.
75.
It is argued that the three brothers were subjected to medical neglect, in violation of
article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and rules 24 and 27 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules.
76.
In the light of the above, the source concludes that the Government of Bahrain failed
to observe norms related to a fair trial in all three cases, rendering the Khatam brothers’
detention arbitrary under category III and contrary to articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.
(b)
Response from the Government
77.
On 22 December 2023, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government of Bahrain under its regular communications procedure, requesting a reply
by 20 February 2024.
78.
In its reply of 16 February 2024, the Government submits that no person in Bahrain
may be arrested without a legal warrant issued by the competent authority and that all the
procedures followed during the arrests of Muntadhar, Murtadha and Mohamed Khatam and
their imprisonment are in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution of Bahrain
and other applicable laws.
79.
As to the source’s claims that a lawyer was not provided for the inmates, the
Government affirms that no request for the appointment of a lawyer has been submitted by
any of them to date.
80.
Muntadhar Khatam was first arrested in flagrante delicto on 22 October 2011, on
charges of unlawful assembly and rioting in a public place. These offences fall under
articles 178 and 179 of the Penal Code. On 29 November 2011, the Lower Criminal Court
sentenced him, in his presence, to one year’s imprisonment. The Court of Appeal rejected the
appeal because it was submitted after the deadline. It was proved that a lawyer for the
defendant had been present during the trial.
81.
Muntadhar Khatam was arrested for the second time on 5 January 2015. He received
a 13-year prison sentence after being convicted of multiple offences under the Penal Code
and Act No. 58 of 2006 regarding the protection of society from terrorist acts.
82.
On 28 December 2015, the Fourth High Criminal Court convicted Muntadhar Khatam
(alongside the other two individuals) of the offences, committed on 11 August 2014, of arson
for a terrorist purpose and endangering a means of transportation, pursuant to articles 178,
179, 277 (1) and 286 of the Penal Code and articles 1, 2 (3) and 3 of Act No. 58 of 2006
regarding the protection of society from terrorist acts. The defendant was sentenced, in the
presence of his lawyer, to three years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.
It was proved that a lawyer for the defendant had been present during the trial.
83.
On 30 May 2016, the Fourth High Criminal Court convicted Muntadhar Khatam
(alongside the other two individuals) of the offences, committed on 19 February 2015, of
assaulting general security personnel, unlawful assembly, rioting in a public place and
obtaining and possessing Molotov cocktails with the aim of using them to endanger people’s
lives and property. The defendant was sentenced, in the presence of his lawyer, to seven years’
imprisonment, pursuant to articles 178, 179, 221, 277 bis and 339 of the Penal Code and
articles 1, 2 (1) and 3 of Act No. 58 of 2006 regarding the protection of society from terrorist
acts.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
9
84.
On 30 March 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in the defendant’s absence
because of his proven unwillingness to appear before the court. It was proved that a lawyer
for the defendant had been present during the trial.
85.
The Fourth High Criminal Court convicted Muntadhar Khatam of the offences of
arson for terrorist purposes, unlawful assembly and rioting in a public place, pursuant to
articles 178, 179 and 277 (1) of the Penal Code and articles 1, 2 (3) and 3 of Act No. 58 of
2006 regarding the protection of society from terrorist acts. He was sentenced, in the presence
of his lawyer, to three years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal amended the sentence, in
the presence of his lawyer, to two years’ imprisonment. It was proved that a lawyer for the
defendant had been present during the trial.
86.
The Lower Criminal Court convicted Muntadhar Khatam (alongside the other two
individuals) of the offences of unlawful assembly, rioting in a public place and possession of
Molotov cocktails with the aim of endangering people’s lives and property, pursuant to
articles 178, 179 and 277 bis of the Penal Code. The defendant was sentenced, in the presence
of his lawyer, to one year’s imprisonment, with bail for the suspension of the sentence set at
500 Bahraini dinars. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.
87.
As to the source’s claims regarding the denial of visits, the Government declares that
Muntadhar Khatam made approximately 105 telephone calls between October 2023 and
January 2024. Furthermore, six visits were arranged for him between October 2022 and
January 2024. However, he did not participate in three of the visits, and his visitors did not
attend one of them.
88.
As to the source’s claims regarding denial of proper medical health care, the
Government affirms that Muntadhar Khatam attended four medical appointments at the
Reform and Rehabilitation Centre clinic in 2022 and 2023. Muntadhar Khatam himself
informed the Ombudsman that he was receiving health care.
89.
As to the source’s allegations regarding the infringement of Muntadhar Khatam’s
right to study, the Government recalls that he himself informed the Ombudsman that he was
allowed to continue his studies and take examinations at the Reform and Rehabilitation
Centre. He requested the help of a teacher to explain the course materials to him a week
before his examinations. The necessary measures were taken in this regard.
90.
Murtadha Khatam was first arrested in flagrante delicto on 3 February 2013, charged
with unlawful assembly, rioting in a public place and possession of Molotov cocktails,
pursuant to articles 178, 179 and 277 bis of the Penal Code.
91.
On 6 May 2013, the Special Investigation Unit received a complaint forwarded by the
Public Prosecution Office regarding Murtadha Khatam. During the investigation by the
Office in connection with charges of participating in an unlawful assembly, rioting and
possessing Molotov cocktails, the defendant claimed that he had received an injury to the
face from a tear gas grenade during his arrest. The defendant added that he had been
physically assaulted after being apprehended and had been threatened by the police during
his interrogation, in order to extract a confession. However, he did not accuse any specific
individual. Murtadha Khatam was summoned to several interrogation sessions by the Special
Investigation Unit, but he failed to comply with the summonses, despite having been duly
notified.
92.
The medical forensic report concerning Murtadha Khatam confirmed that he had
sustained injuries to the right side of his face and had lost two teeth in the upper right jaw.
The forensic pathologist concluded that the injuries observed were consistent with those
caused by a tear gas grenade. Upon questioning, all the members of the general security forces
involved in Murtadha Khatam’s arrest denied the allegations made against them. The Special
Investigation Unit decided to rule out a crime related to threatening behaviour intended to
obtain a confession, since the defendant’s statements were not supported by sufficient
evidence. However, the defendant requested that a criminal complaint be filed for the failure
to identify the person who had caused his facial injury during the arrest.
93.
On 25 March 2014, the Lower Criminal Court sentenced the defendant, in his presence,
to one year’s imprisonment. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal because it was
submitted after the deadline.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
10
GE.24-08014
94.
The Lower Criminal Court sentenced Murtadha Khatam, in the presence of his lawyer,
to one year of imprisonment, with bail for the suspension of the sentence set at 500 Bahraini
dinars. The defendant was declared to be a fugitive on 1 March 2015, as he had failed to
comply with an order to attend the investigation sessions and had not been apprehended. The
Court of Appeal upheld the verdict in the absence of the defendant.
95.
The Government recalls that Murtadha Khatam was arrested for the second time on
5 April 2015 and was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined 20 Bahraini dinars. He was
charged with multiple criminal offences falling under the Penal Code and Act No. 58 of 2006
regarding the protection of society from terrorist acts.
96.
On 28 December 2015, the Third High Criminal Court sentenced Murtadha Khatam,
in the presence of his lawyer, to three years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal upheld the
verdict. It was proved that a lawyer for the defendant had been present during the trial.
97.
On 13 March 2016, the Fourth High Criminal Court sentenced Murtadha Khatam, in
the presence of his lawyer, and alongside Mohamed Khatam, to five years’ imprisonment for
the offences, committed on 25 November 2015, of placing fake explosives on a public road
for terrorist purposes, arson for terrorist purposes, participating in an unlawful assembly and
rioting. The Court of Appeal, in the absence of the defendant, amended the sentence to three
years’ imprisonment. It was proved that a lawyer for the defendant had been present during
the trial.
98.
On 30 May 2016, the Fourth High Criminal Court sentenced Murtadha Khatam, in the
presence of his lawyer, to seven years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict.
It was proved that a lawyer for the defendant had been present during the trial.
99.
The Government states that Murtadha Khatam made approximately 96 telephone calls
between October and January 2024. Moreover, six visits were arranged for him between
October 2023 and January 2024. However, Murtadha Khatam did not participate in two of
the visits, and his visitors did not attend another two.
100.
The Government affirms that six medical appointments were scheduled for Murtadha
Khatam at the Reform and Rehabilitation Centre clinic in 2022 and 2023.
101.
The Government notes that Murtadha Khatam refused to meet with the Ombudsman.
102.
Mohamed Khatam was declared to be a fugitive in the case on 10 January 2012, as he
had not complied with an order to attend the investigation sessions and had not been arrested.
He was charged with the offences, allegedly committed on 31 December 2011, of unlawful
assembly, rioting in a public place and possession of Molotov cocktails with the intention of
endangering people’s lives and property. These offences fall under articles 178, 179 and
277 bis of the Penal Code. The Lower Criminal Court sentenced him in absentia to one
month’s imprisonment. He was declared to be a fugitive in the case on 1 March 2015, as he
had not complied with an order to attend the investigation sessions and had not been arrested.
The Lower Criminal Court sentenced him, in the presence of his lawyer, to one year’s
imprisonment, with bail for the suspension of the sentence set at 500 Bahraini dinars.
103.
Mohamed Khatam was declared to be a fugitive in the case on 3 March 2015. He was
charged with the offences, allegedly committed on 11 August 2014, of arson for terrorist
purposes and endangering a means of transportation. These offences fall under articles 178,
179, 277 (1) and 286 of the Penal Code and articles 1, 2 (3) and 3 of Act No. 58 of 2006
regarding the protection of society from terrorist acts.
104.
Mohamed Khatam was arrested on 5 May 2015. He was charged with multiple
criminal offences under the Penal Code and Act No. 58 of 2006 regarding the protection of
society from terrorist acts.
105.
Mohamed Khatam was declared to be a fugitive in the case on 6 May 2015, as he had
not complied with an order to appear at the investigation sessions and had not been arrested.
106.
On 28 December 2015, the Third High Criminal Court sentenced Mohamed Khatam,
in absentia, to three years in prison. The defendant did not attend the court hearings despite
having been notified of them. The sentence was handed down in absentia, and the defendant
did not appeal it.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
11
107.
On 13 March 2016, the Fourth High Criminal Court sentenced Mohamed Khatam, in
the presence of his lawyer, to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal amended the
sentence to three years in prison. It was proved that a lawyer for the defendant had been
present during the trial.
108.
On 30 May 2016, the Fourth High Criminal Court sentenced Mohamed Khatam, in
the presence of his lawyer, to seven years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal upheld the
verdict. It was proved that a lawyer for the defendant had been present during the trial.
109.
The Government states that Mohamed Khatam made approximately 98 telephone
calls between October and January 2024. Moreover, six visits were scheduled for him
between October 2023 and January 2024: two of the visits took place, and he did not
participate in the other four.
110.
The Government affirms that Mohamed Khatam attended 11 medical appointments in
2023.
111.
As to the source’s allegations about the infringement of Mohamed Khatam’s right to
study, the Government recalls that he himself informed the Ombudsman that he was taking
his examinations and that no violation in that regard had occurred.
112. Mohamed Khatam informed the Ombudsman that he had endured beatings and torture.
Such allegations of mistreatment were referred to the Special Investigation Unit and the
relevant authorities.
(c)
Further comments from the source
113.
On 16 February 2024, the Government’s reply was transmitted to the source for
further comments, which the source submitted on 1 March 2024. The source reiterated its
submissions and provided further information to rebut the Government’s submissions, as
discussed below.
2.
Discussion
114.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
115.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the three 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.4 Mere assertions by the Government
that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.
116.
The Working Group notes that Muntadhar Khatam and Murtadha Khatam were no
longer minors at the time of the adoption of the present opinion. However, they were under
18 years of age when first arrested and subsequently detained, and their submissions relating
to that incident 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.
(a)
Category I
117.
The source submits that, in relation to their arrests in 2015, the three brothers were
arrested without being presented with a warrant or informed of the reason for their arrest.
The Government explains that no individual may be arrested without a legal warrant issued
by a competent authority and makes general submissions on the necessary measures taken
and legal guarantees provided. As stated by the source in its further submissions, the
Government does not address the specific allegation that, at the time of arrest, none of the
three detainees was presented with an arrest warrant or any legal proof of the existence of a
warrant, nor was any of them informed of the reasons for the arrest.
118.
Pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one is to be deprived of liberty except on
such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. To establish
4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
12
GE.24-08014
a legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply
it to the circumstances of the case.5 The international norms on detention include the right to
be presented with an arrest warrant (or the equivalent), except for arrests that are made in
flagrante delicto. Weighing up the submissions of both parties, the Working Group concludes
that the three individuals were not shown an arrest warrant or the equivalent, in violation of
articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the
Covenant.6
119.
As the Working Group has stated, an arrest is arbitrary when it is carried out without
the arrested person being informed of the reasons for the arrest.7 The reasons for arrest must
be provided immediately upon arrest.8 Noting the source’s credible submissions that the three
individuals were not informed of the reasons at the time of their arrests, the Working Group
finds a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
120.
The source submits that the three brothers were not brought promptly before a judge
following their arrests in 2015. 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.9 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.
121.
In relation to the arrests of Murtadha and Muntadhar Khatam in 2012, which, the
source alleges, also occurred without the presentation of a warrant, the Working Group
observes that both were minors at the time. The Working Group finds a violation of
article 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that: “No child shall
be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.”10
122.
The source submits that Murtadha Khatam was subjected to enforced disappearance
and was held in solitary confinement as a retaliatory measure from 17 April 2021 until 5 May
2021. The Government remains silent on this allegation, while asserting that inmates have
regular family contact. The source, in its further submissions, notes that these violations were
the result of repression against detainees protesting their prison conditions. It adds that the
incident in question was confirmed by two Members of Parliament from the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Affairs of the United Kingdom, on 22 April 2021, calling
upon him to urge Bahrain to disclose the whereabouts of the disappeared individuals and to
ensure that all victims were provided with adequate medical care. Furthermore, on 30 April
2021, OHCHR condemned the incident and called for a thorough investigation and the
provision of information on the condition of inmates in solitary confinement.11
123.
In relation to the allegation of solitary confinement, which the Government does not
deny, the Working Group refers to rule 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, which states that
solitary confinement must be used only in exceptional cases, as a last resort, for as short a
time as possible, subject to independent review and authorized by a competent authority.
124.
Noting the well-substantiated allegations made by the source, the Working Group
concludes that Murtadha Khatam was subjected to enforced disappearance, which is an
5 See opinions No. 9/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 46/2019 and No. 59/2019.
6 Opinion No. 88/2017, para. 27.
7 Opinions No. 10/2015, para. 34; No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 59/2019, para. 46; and No. 46/2020,
para. 40.
8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27. See also opinion No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59.
9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33. See also CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1,
paras. 39 and 40.
10 See also Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 90.
11 OHCHR, “Press briefing notes on Bahrain”, 30 April 2021.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
13
aggravated form of arbitrary detention.12 The Working Group has repeatedly asserted that
holding persons at secret, undisclosed locations and in circumstances undisclosed to their
family violates their right to contest the legality of their detention before a court or tribunal
under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. Judicial oversight of any detention is a central safeguard
for personal liberty and is critical in ensuring that detention has a legitimate basis.
125.
For the reasons set out above, the Working Group finds that the detention of the three
brothers is arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
126.
The source argues that the three brothers were arrested for their participation in
peaceful protests and exercising their rights and freedoms guaranteed under articles 18, 19
and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the
Covenant. For this reason, their detention is arbitrary under category II. They were detained
for participating in peaceful protests, on the pretext that they had participated in an unlawful
assembly. While the Working Group is aware of the public protests that were occurring in
Bahrain at the time of the events, it is unable to make a finding under this category, as the
source has not furnished it with sufficient and relevant information relating to the
participation of the brothers in the peaceful protests.
(c)
Category III
127.
The source alleges that the three brothers faced numerous fair trial and due process
violations during the course of their trials and legal proceedings.
128.
In relation to the right to counsel, the source submits that the three brothers were
denied access to counsel. In response, the Government contends that none of the defendants
has yet submitted a request for the appointment of a lawyer and asserts that, for each of the
defendants, the presence of a lawyer at trial was established. The source asserts, in its further
submissions, that the Government remained silent on the question of the absence of legal
counsel during the interrogation and pretrial detention of all three brothers and that Murtadha
and Mohamed Khatam were compelled to file their own appeals. During the court
proceedings, none of the brothers was acquainted with the lawyer supposedly appointed by
the court, and none of them met the lawyer in question. The brothers noted the presence of
lawyers in court; however, they were unable to identify those assigned to them.
129.
In its further submissions, the source asserts that all three brothers, along with other
detainees, were gathered inside the courtroom and were asked to sign papers indicating their
refusal to go to court. While they were sometimes taken to attend court sessions, they were
at other times brought to court but forced to remain outside, in a vehicle, and prohibited from
entering the courtroom. Furthermore, the lawyers present inside the courtroom identified
themselves by stating the relevant case number and the number of the defendant whom they
represented. However, the detainees were not aware of their case number or their respective
numbers in the case. In addition, none of the three brothers met with a lawyer at any time
during the trial period. Moreover, members of their family have recently communicated by
email with the sentencing judge and the office of the director of the court administration to
request the case files or, at a minimum, the names of the court-appointed lawyers, if any, who
represented the three brothers in court. However, they have not received any response, and
each entity asked them to approach another.
130.
Noting the source’s detailed submissions, the Working Group considers that it has
established that the brothers did not have adequate access to a lawyer from the outset of their
detention and at other key stages, including during their interrogation and at trial. As a result,
they were not afforded the right under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant to adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their
choosing. The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17. See also opinion No. 37/2021,
para. 65.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
14
GE.24-08014
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.13
131.
The source submits that the three brothers were coerced into signing false confessions
under duress and torture. The burden is on the Government to prove that the statements of
the individuals were given freely, 14 but it has not done so adequately. Noting the
Government’s claim that every inmate is granted humane treatment, the source, in its further
submissions, indicates that this broad response fails to adequately respond to the need, for all
three brothers, for detailed information on torture and forced confessions, notably given the
presence of visible injuries, as in the case of Muntadhar Khatam. The Working Group is
persuaded by the source’s submissions that the three brothers confessed under torture and
duress. The Working Group has repeatedly found that the admission as evidence of a
statement obtained through torture renders the entire proceedings unfair. 15 Moreover,
confessions made in the absence of legal counsel are not admissible as evidence in criminal
proceedings.16 Consequently, the right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the
Covenant and the right not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the
Covenant have been violated, as has principle 21 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which protects a detainee
from self-incrimination or compelled confessions.
132.
The Working Group recalls the finding of the Committee against Torture that the
intentional infliction of physical or psychological pressure to obtain a confession violates the
obligations of Bahrain under articles 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.
Moreover, the Prosecutor is 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.17
133.
The source submits that the three brothers were subjected to medical neglect. In its
further submissions, the source reiterates that the Government, in its response, mentions the
number of medical appointments for each individual without providing reasons for the
appointments or specifying the type of treatment administered. Nor is it clarified in the
response whether the visits promptly followed instances of health problems or whether there
were significant delays in scheduling. In its response, the Government does not establish that
all three brothers received immediate post-arrest and post-interrogation medical checks. The
response lacks specific information on examination dates, examining physicians and the
content of medical reports. The Working Group recalls that denial of medical care can
constitute a form of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.18 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.
134.
Taking these factors into account, the Working Group finds that the violations relating
to the brothers’ conditions of detention and lack of medical care 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.19
135.
The source submits that Muntadhar and Murtadha Khatam were sentenced in absentia.
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 the accused persons in a timely manner and to inform them beforehand about the
13 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).
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41.
15 See opinions No. 43/2012, No. 34/2015, No. 52/2018 and No. 59/2019.
16 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.
17 Opinions No. 47/2017, para. 29; and No. 63/2020, para. 42.
18 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18; and opinions No. 20/2022, para. 104; and No. 65/2022.
19 Opinions No. 32/2019, para. 42; No. 59/2019, para. 69; and No. 65/2022, para. 117.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
GE.24-08014
15
date and place of their trial and to request their attendance.20 The source has not provided
sufficient information for the Working Group to make this assessment.
136.
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.
(d)
Concluding remarks
137.
The Working Group is concerned about the severity of the torture alleged by the
brothers, the ongoing impact of the injuries suffered by them as a result and their other health
issues. It is troubled by the numerous allegations relating to conditions of detention at Jau
Prison, which have attracted international attention and reportedly led detainees to carry out
hunger strikes in 2023 in protest at these conditions. 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 that are available in the community.21
138.
The Working Group recalls the source’s submission that, after being arrested and
detained, all three brothers stopped attending school for fear of persecution. The source
submits that, on 14 May 2023, following the raid at Jau Prison, some detainees, including the
three brothers, were injured and were reportedly denied the opportunity to take certain
examinations in retaliation for protesting the raid. As a result, they are currently repeating an
academic year. While the Government denies this allegation, the Working Group is obliged
to remind it 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 the brothers have experienced in this regard. The Working Group is deeply
troubled about the allegations made in the source’s further submissions that the brothers
refrained from taking other examinations because of the degrading process to which they
were subjected before entering the classroom, as officers touched private areas of their bodies
under the pretext of an “inspection”. The Working Group calls upon the Government to
investigate these allegations.
139.
These cases follow a pattern of numerous others brought before the Working Group
in recent years concerning arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Bahrain, namely, a pattern of
warrantless pretrial detention with limited access to judicial review, denial of access to
lawyers, forced confessions, torture and ill-treatment, and denial of medical care.22 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.23
140.
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.
3.
Disposition
141.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Muntadhar Abdali Mohamed Khatam, Murtadha Abdali
Mohamed Khatam and Mohamed Abdali Mohamed Hasan Khatam, being in
contravention of articles 3 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
20 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 36.
21 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
22 See opinions No. 31/2019, No. 59/2019, No. 73/2019, No. 5/2020, No. 41/2020 and No. 87/2020.
23 Opinion No. 47/2012, para. 22.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/16
16
GE.24-08014
142.
The Working Group requests the Government of Bahrain to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Muntadhar, Murtadha and Mohamed Khatam 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.
143.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Muntadhar, Murtadha and Mohamed
Khatam immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law.
144.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Muntadhar, Murtadha and Mohamed Khatam, including the allegation that they were tortured,
and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights.
145.
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, for appropriate action.
146.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
147.
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 Muntadhar, Murtadha and Mohamed Khatam have been released and,
if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Muntadhar,
Murtadha and Mohamed Khatam;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Muntadhar, Murtadha and Mohamed Khatam 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.
148.
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.
149.
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 of any failure to take action.
150.
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.24
[Adopted on 22 March 2024]
24 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.