Opinion; Subjects: QATAR, 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.25-03306 (E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 101st session, 11–15 November 2024
Opinion No. 64/2024 concerning Matthew Alexander Pascoe (Qatar)*
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 6 August 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Qatar a communication concerning Matthew Alexander
Pascoe. The Government submitted a late response on 31 October 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
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 March 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
2
GE.25-03306
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Matthew Alexander Pascoe was born on 1 May 1992. He is a national of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and holds a Qatari identity card. He is a social
media and marketing consultant. His usual place of residence is Doha.
(i)
Context
5.
The source submits that Mr. Pascoe’s case is an example of practices highlighted in
the Working Group’s previous jurisprudence concerning Qatar. These practices include
arbitrary detention; torture and ill-treatment; denial of legal access; false and contradictory
evidence, and lack of evidence from the authorities; lack of access to information relating to
charges or to case files; forced confessions; lack of access to translation services;
incommunicado detention; and lack of access to medical treatment, resulting in
post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and panic attacks among those detained.2
6.
According to the source, on the night of 26 September 2018, one of Mr. Pascoe’s
friends and his friend’s relative were arrested by officers of the Drug Enforcement Agency
of Qatar for alleged drug offences. Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe’s friend told the Agency officers
that Mr. Pascoe was the source of his drug supply and agreed to take part in an operation to
arrest Mr. Pascoe on 27 September 2018.
7.
The source reports that on 27 September 2018 at 1 a.m., within two and a half hours
of the arrival of the Drug Enforcement Agency officers at Mr. Pascoe’s friend’s house, the
friend phoned Mr. Pascoe and asked to meet him outside Mr. Pascoe’s apartment to talk,
stating that he had had a fight with his partner. Mr. Pascoe agreed. It is noted that this
conversation was confirmed by the arresting police officers under oath in court.
8.
The same day, on 27 September 2018, between 1.40 a.m. and 2.20 a.m., Mr. Pascoe’s
friend met Mr. Pascoe outside the latter’s apartment. While staying in his car, the friend asked
Mr. Pascoe to sell him a cannabinoid drug for 2,000 riyals (QR) using police marked
banknotes. Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe was surprised by the conversation and repeatedly asked
his friend to go into his apartment to talk. It is noted that the police confirmed under oath that
Mr. Pascoe’s friend repeated the request to Mr. Pascoe to sell the drug three times, and each
time Mr. Pascoe reportedly ignored the request and did not take the money.
9.
According to the source, although the entrapment operation had failed – as no drugs
were sold, no marked banknotes were exchanged and no drugs were found in Mr. Pascoe’s
possession – Mr. Pascoe was nonetheless arrested and handcuffed.
10.
The source submits that according to the case file, on 27 September 2018 at 1.40 a.m.,
the Deputy Public Prosecutor approved a search warrant to search Mr. Pascoe, his vehicle –
although he did not own a vehicle – and anyone present with him. It is noted, however, that
according to the case file of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pascoe’s friend made
his phone call at 1.00 a.m.. As such, the source submits that the Office of the Public
Prosecutor did not conduct all the standard processes for arrest, as the interval was too short
to ensure due diligence.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
11.
The source submits that Mr. Pascoe was arrested on 27 September 2018 at 2.20 a.m.
in the open courtyard area outside his apartment, by Drug Enforcement Agency officers in
plain clothes and in unmarked vehicles. Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe was handcuffed immediately
and pushed to the ground, as a result of which he sustained a head injury. He was then placed
into a police vehicle with blacked-out windows. It is noted that an interpreter was present
inside the vehicle. Once in the police vehicle, attempts were reportedly made to physically
coerce Mr. Pascoe to tell the police where he lived, but he repeatedly refused. According to
the source, the interpreter told Mr. Pascoe that the police knew the address of a member of
his family and would go and beat his family member until he disclosed his own address.
2 See also opinions No. 1/2014, No. 1/2015, No. 1/2021 and No. 1/2024. See also A/HRC/45/16/Add.2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
3
Moreover, it is reported that Mr. Pascoe was also informally interrogated and physically
coerced to confess to crimes he did not commit. The source submits that the interpreter told
Mr. Pascoe to “agree to everything” and that he could change his statement later with his
lawyer “to make it easier” for himself.
12.
Reportedly, on the same day, the authorities issued a travel ban on Mr. Pascoe.
13.
It is further reported that Mr. Pascoe was not presented with an arrest or search warrant
or informed of the reasons for his arrest or his right to remain silent, and that the officers
conducting the arrest did not speak English. The source submits that Mr. Pascoe was only
shown a personal search and arrest warrant on 16 April 2019, 28 weeks after his arrest, and
that he was only informed of the charges against him on 2 April 2019, when he received the
formal letter of charges, along with the date of his first court appearance (16 April 2019) in
his trial.
14.
According to the source, immediately after Mr. Pascoe’s arrest, and after he informed
the police of his address, a search of his apartment was conducted. Allegedly, a quantity of
drugs was found along with materials for growing the drug. More specifically, the authorities
reportedly found a bag weighing a total of 1,650 grams containing drugs, an empty gas
canister, tissue paper, paper, cardboard clips, empty water bottles, rope and thread. However,
the items were not photographed in Mr. Pascoe’s apartment and there has been no
independent verification of any of the materials. The source notes that documents issued by
the Qatar forensic services stated that a sample of 0.7 grams had been used to determine the
amount of drugs, and, despite confirming the contents of the bag in writing, considered the
total weight of the drugs to be the total weight of the bag, including the empty water bottles,
rope and other items.
15.
Reportedly, on the same day, 27 September 2018, between 3 a.m. and 3.30 p.m.,
Mr. Pascoe, having been awake for 20 to 32 hours, was taken to the Office of the Public
Prosecutor. Mr. Pascoe requested to see a doctor and a lawyer and to communicate with the
British Embassy, but his requests were denied. He was reportedly kept in a room on his own
and informed that he would be kept there until he confessed. The source recalls that no one
spoke in English to Mr. Pascoe. During that time, Mr. Pascoe vomited several times, while
remaining in handcuffs. Nevertheless, and despite the visible head injury that he had
sustained during his arrest, Mr. Pascoe was not seen by a doctor, a point that the source notes
was confirmed by the police under oath during the trial.
16.
At 3.30 p.m. on the same day, while at the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pascoe
was reportedly interrogated without a lawyer. By that time, Mr. Pascoe had allegedly been
awake and without food for more than 32 hours, and had not seen a doctor. Reportedly,
Mr. Pascoe’s so-called confession was jointly written by hand by three or four police officers.
The source states that the interpreter summarized in English the questions posed in Arabic,
Mr. Pascoe replied in English and the interpreter summarized his answers in Arabic, and the
police officers wrote down the answers in Arabic. When the interrogation was over, the police
took Mr. Pascoe to another room and left him there alone. The interpreter did not accompany
the police at this time, and Mr. Pascoe was not given access to legal representation or
independent interpretation. Subsequently, the alleged confession was typed in Arabic in a
different room, out of Mr. Pascoe’s sight. After several hours, Mr. Pascoe was reportedly
presented with the typed confession in Arabic, with no English translation, and he was told
to sign it. Mr. Pascoe reportedly refused to sign it, as he did not know whether he was signing
the statements that he had made. The authorities told him that he had to sign it and forced
him to add his thumbprint although his hands were still handcuffed behind his back.
17.
The source submits that no independent English translation was available to confirm
the contents of the so-called confession, and no one independently confirmed how the
multiple police officers had collated the contents into one document for signature. There was
no way to know whether what Mr. Pascoe had said was what had been written and submitted
as evidence, and no original copy was given to him or his lawyer until 16 April 2019, after
his appearance before the Court of First Instance, six months after his interrogation.
Moreover, the source notes that no video recording of his confession was submitted as
evidence.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
4
GE.25-03306
18.
On 27 September 2018, the day of his arrest, at 8.30 p.m., after he had been awake for
more than 40 hours with no food, Mr. Pascoe was transferred to Duhail Prison and told to
stand in front of a table on which alleged evidence was displayed. However, it is noted that
no evidentiary chain was shown to indicate where the alleged evidence had come from
originally or who moved it to Duhail Prison.
19.
On 28 September 2018 at 1.50 a.m., Mr. Pascoe was moved from Duhail Prison to the
laboratory of the Ministry of the Interior in the Industrial Area in Doha. Reportedly, a urine
sample was taken, more than 24 hours after the arrest, and no blood samples were taken to
confirm or dispute drug usage. It is noted that according to the case put forward by the Public
Prosecutor, the sample showed the effects of illicit cannabis abuse and contained more than
200,000 nanograms of cannabis. No further details were provided.
20.
Despite several requests for a doctor, Mr. Pascoe did not undergo any medical
examination. Moreover, the authorities informed him that the doctor was available only twice
a week and that there was a list of people to be seen on each occasion. The source reports
that Mr. Pascoe had been diagnosed with food intolerances one month before his arrest, which
was not addressed by the authorities. Moreover, and even though Mr. Pascoe was presumed
to be a drug user by the authorities, no treatment was offered for any drug-related issues.
21.
On the same day, 28 September 2018, between 2.30 and 3.30 a.m., Mr. Pascoe was
reportedly transferred back to Duhail Prison. At 10.30 a.m., Mr. Pascoe’s family realized that
Mr. Pascoe was not answering any phone calls and rushed to his apartment to check on his
medical condition: he has a Helicobacter pylori infection, caused by a type of bacteria that
infects the stomach and can damage the stomach tissue, causing pain and inflammation, and
can potentially lead to stomach ulcers and stomach cancer. At his apartment building,
Mr. Pascoe’s relatives were informed by a third party that he had been arrested. Reportedly,
Mr. Pascoe’s relatives then entered his apartment, which had not been sealed and was
unsupervised, which meant, according to the source, that anything could have been taken or
added. Subsequently, Mr. Pascoe’s family hired a lawyer to represent Mr. Pascoe.
22.
On 29 September 2018, at 10.30 a.m., Mr. Pascoe’s relatives returned to Mr. Pascoe’s
apartment. The apartment had still not been sealed for evidence, and they took photographs.
The source submits that this occurred before a video of the apartment was taken, on 1 October
2018, and thus anyone could have entered the apartment between Mr. Pascoe’s arrest and
that date. There is no confirmation that anything in the apartment and shown on the video
was there during the arrest. It is noted that Mr. Pascoe has not been given access to
closed-circuit television footage in the apartment and parking areas to see if anyone else
visited the apartment and removed or added items while the apartment was unsealed and
unsupervised. Although his lawyer requested the footage, they were advised it was the
property of the Office of the Public Prosecutor.
23.
On 30 September 2018, Mr. Pascoe was reportedly brought before a judge for the first
time, and his detention was extended. At this time, Mr. Pascoe did not have a lawyer present,
and the authorities did not appoint one. Moreover, it is noted that he was not allowed a
consular meeting with officials from the British Embassy, despite his requests. On the same
day, Mr. Pascoe reportedly signed a property search warrant, approving access to his
apartment by the Office of the Public Prosecutor for a search scheduled for 1 October 2018.
The source submits that such approval would not have been required if a search warrant or
“no objection letter” had already been prepared for Mr. Pascoe’s signature on the day of his
arrest.
24.
In parallel, a meeting was held between the Office of the Public Prosecutor and
Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer – who had been appointed by Mr. Pascoe’s family on his behalf – on
30 September 2018, before Mr. Pascoe was permitted to meet with his lawyer. The source
further reports that Mr. Pascoe did not know that this meeting was happening and was brought
into the room by the public prosecution to meet with his lawyer after his court appearance.
All conversations between Mr. Pascoe and his lawyer were held in front of the public
prosecution, and thus not private. The source notes that Mr. Pascoe was unable to talk with
his family at that time, and thus did not know that his family had appointed a lawyer for him.
Reportedly, the public prosecution asked Mr. Pascoe if he had anything to add to his
statement, and Mr. Pascoe answered that he wanted to change it. The public prosecution said
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
5
he could not change it, but that he could add to it. Mr. Pascoe then asked if he could add that
he wanted to change it, and that request was denied. His lawyer made no comment, and
Mr. Pascoe was taken back to Duhail Prison. The source notes that at this meeting, the public
prosecution was aware that Mr. Pascoe’s apartment would be searched and filmed the next
day but did not advise his lawyer, who could have attended to help build the case for his
defence.
25.
On 1 October 2018, a search was reportedly conducted of Mr. Pascoe’s apartment.
The source submits that the police had already removed all alleged evidence and, since the
apartment remained unsealed, it is not known what was and what was not in the apartment at
the time of arrest. Before going to the apartment, Mr. Pascoe reportedly asked a police officer
if his lawyer could attend, but the authorities refused, arguing that it was a formality to visit
the apartment with the public prosecution.
26.
The source reports that in the video produced by the public prosecution during the
search that day, the public prosecution is shown ordering the interpreter to ask Mr. Pascoe
questions. The interpreter then did so, and Mr. Pascoe reportedly declined to answer, stating
that he would like to speak with his lawyer. The public prosecution then reportedly addressed
Mr. Pascoe in English, but he refused to answer further questions without his lawyer present.
According to the source, Mr. Pascoe’s statement requesting a lawyer was not included in the
minutes of the search, which state only that Mr. Pascoe refused to explain his crime.
27.
The source reports that Mr. Pascoe was held incommunicado from the moment of his
arrest on 27 September 2018 until 2 October 2018, when one of his relatives was first able to
visit him at Duhail Prison. Mr. Pascoe’s family was not informed of his arrest or of his
whereabouts; his family only found out about his arrest from a third party and had to visit
several prisons and police stations to find out where he was being held.
28.
On 7 October 2018, Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer attended court offices on his behalf.
Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe was brought to court separately and did not speak to his lawyer.
29.
On 8 October 2018, after 12 days of detention, Mr. Pascoe had his first private meeting
with his lawyer. On the same date, officials from the British Embassy reportedly had a
supervised visit with Mr. Pascoe.
30.
Previously, on 2 October 2018, Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer had gone to Duhail Prison with
one of Mr. Pascoe’s relatives to visit Mr. Pascoe. Reportedly, the authorities had refused the
lawyer’s request to visit Mr. Pascoe, as it was not a “lawyer day”.
31.
Reportedly, on 8 November 2018, after seven weeks of pretrial detention, Mr. Pascoe
was released on bail. The source notes that Mr. Pascoe’s family paid QR 15,000 for his bail.
The day before, the British Embassy had held an unsupervised meeting with him.
32.
The source notes that Mr. Pascoe’s friend and the friend’s relative did not refer to
Mr. Pascoe in any written statements on 26 or 27 September 2018. Reportedly, no police
written statements referencing to Mr. Pascoe were taken from his friend until 11 November
2018, seven weeks after Mr. Pascoe’s arrest and detention, and after his release on bail on
8 November 2018.
33.
The source notes that on 2 April 2019, 188 days after his arrest, Mr. Pascoe received
a formal letter informing him of the charges being brought against him by the Office of the
Public Prosecutor. In the letter, the Public Prosecutor referred Mr. Pascoe to the Court of
First Instance on the following charges: (a) production and planting of marijuana for the
purposes of trafficking in circumstances other than those permissible by law; (b) production
and planting of marijuana for the purposes of consumption in circumstances other than those
permissible by law; (c) possession and acquisition of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking
in circumstances other than those permissible by law; (d) possession and acquisition of
marijuana for the purposes of consumption in circumstances other than those permissible by
law; and (e) consumption of narcotic weeds in circumstances other than those permissible by
law. The charges were being brought under articles 1, 10, 34 (1) (b) and (c), 35 (1) (a), 37 (1),
44 and 49 of Law No. 9 of 1987 on the Control and Regulation of Narcotic Drugs and
Dangerous Psychotropic Substances.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
6
GE.25-03306
34.
Reportedly, on 16 April 2019, Mr. Pascoe appeared before the Court of First Instance.
The source submits that this hearing was perfunctory, as Mr. Pascoe was asked only if he
was guilty or not guilty, to which he answered he was not guilty, and no more questions
followed. The source notes that Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer tried to obtain the prosecution file
against Mr. Pascoe to ascertain the charges and see his confession, but the requests were
denied until after Mr. Pascoe’s first appearance before the Court of First Instance, when his
lawyer was provided with a copy of the case file in Arabic.
35.
The source notes that no recordings of the conversations between any of the parties
have been submitted as evidence to show whether Mr. Pascoe was guilty or not guilty of any
crime. No marked banknotes were presented as evidence by the Office of the Public
Prosecutor. Moreover, the source reports that no crime was committed in flagrante delicto,
and no narcotic substances or any other items whose possession or acquisition would be
considered to be a crime were found in Mr. Pascoe’s possession at the time of arrest.
36.
On 12 December 2019, Mr. Pascoe received the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, in which the Court found Mr. Pascoe guilty and sentenced him to 15 years in prison
and a fine of QR 300,000. The source notes that this sentence was allegedly based on the
false amount of 82 kilograms of drugs, which were allegedly found in Mr. Pascoe’s
apartment. It is submitted that this false quantity, which was first introduced in the judgment
of the Court of First Instance, contradicts the documents in the case file of the Office of the
Public Prosecutor that were prepared by the arresting officers, which referred to a bag
weighing a total of 1,650 grams containing drugs, an empty gas canister, tissue paper, paper,
cardboard clips, empty water bottles, rope and thread. According to the source, the Court of
First Instance based its decision on the fact that the evidence found in Mr. Pascoe’s apartment
could be used for future crimes.
37.
Following Mr. Pascoe’s conviction by the Court of First Instance, his lawyer filed an
appeal against the judgment on 23 December 2019.
38.
Reportedly, on 7 January 2020, Mr. Pascoe appeared before the Court of Appeal,
which revoked his bail, and he was taken to Capital Prison. The source submits that during
the hearing before the Court of Appeal, no interpreter was present.
39.
It is submitted that Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer stated in the memorandum of defence to the
Court of Appeal that the video accompanying the investigations – which had been filmed
five days after the arrest – had proved that Mr. Pascoe had sustained an injury to the forehead
as a result of the physical coercion that he had suffered, and that it was clear from the video
that the accused had kept silent and refused to make any statement except in the presence of
his lawyer, which did not occur either with the police or the public prosecution, confirming
that the Court’s judgment had been marred by the erroneous application of the law and the
violation of the right to a defence.
40.
The source submits that the Court of First Instance, in its verdict, stated that the plea
that Mr. Pascoe’s confession before the police and the public prosecution was invalid as it
had been made under duress was refutable, because the court was free to draw inferences on
and to assess the validity and value of confessions in criminal matters and had the right to
rely on a confession if it was found to be valid and to match the facts and truth.
41.
At the beginning of February 2020, Mr. Pascoe was reportedly transferred from
Capital Prison to Central Prison, in Doha, where he is currently being held.
42.
On 18 February 2020, Mr. Pascoe appeared for the second time before the Court of
Appeal. Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe’s friend who had participated in the police entrapment did
not attend. The judge stated that the informant had the right to be out of the country, and that
Mr. Pascoe must submit a final oral submission on his defence case at his next appearance,
meaning, the source notes, that Mr. Pascoe would give up his right to question his friend in
court. No interpreter was present at the hearing, Mr. Pascoe’s appearance before the Court
lasted five minutes or less and he was not asked any questions.
43.
On 10 April 2020, Mr. Pascoe appeared for the third and final time before the Court
of Appeal. No interpreter present at the hearing and the Court did not ask Mr. Pascoe any
questions. The Court did not recall any witnesses to confirm any inaccuracies or
independently assess the truth of the case.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
7
44.
On 14 July 2020, Mr. Pascoe received the verdict from the Court of Appeal, in which
his sentence was reduced from 15 to 7 years.
45.
On 8 September 2020, Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer submitted the memorandum of defence to
the Court of Cassation.
46.
On 22 April 2021, the Court of Cassation issued its verdict, confirming the decision
of the Court of Appeal.
47.
It is submitted that the Court of Cassation stated in its verdict that it was obvious that
the Court of Appeal, in its decision, had used “acceptable and justified reasons” to disregard
the plea that the arrest warrant was invalid as it had been issued for a future crime and that
the arrest itself was invalid as it had occurred before the arrest warrant had been issued. The
Court of Cassation therefore upheld the decision that Mr. Pascoe’s plea in that regard was
unfounded and should be disregarded. The source argues that despite the fact that, by law in
Qatar, a person cannot be charged with a future crime, Mr. Pascoe was in fact charged with
future crimes and with the intention to commit future crimes. Moreover, the source submits
that the “acceptable and justified reasons” referred to by the Court of Cassation were never
identified. The source recalls that under article 40 of the Permanent Constitution, no crime is
committed and no punishment applies save as prescribed by the law, and criminal laws do
not have a retrospective effect. The source further recalls that under article 27 of the Penal
Code (Law No. 11 of 2004), a person is liable only for the act that the person actually
committed and, under article 28 of the same law, the mere intention to commit a felony or
acts in preparation thereof are not deemed as attempting to do so.
48.
The source reports that Mr. Pascoe is currently being held at Central Prison, in Doha,
and that he has completed more than four years of his sentence.
(iii)
Legal analysis
49.
The source argues that Mr. Pascoe’s arrest and subsequent detention are arbitrary
under categories I, III and V.
a.
Category I
50.
The source argues that Mr. Pascoe was not provided with an arrest warrant or
informed of the reasons for his arrest at the moment of his arrest, contrary to article 9 of the
Covenant, article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 12 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. It asserts that Mr. Pascoe was deprived of his liberty on the immediate
assumption of guilt following a failed entrapment operation where no crime took place.
51.
According to the source, the police stated under oath in court that Mr. Pascoe had not
sold drugs at the moment of his arrest, and that the police entrapment operation had failed.
Moreover, he was informed of the charges against him only 188 days after his arrest. The
source contends that the authorities had no legal basis or evidence on which to arrest
Mr. Pascoe and undertake a property search.
52.
Furthermore, the source argues that the police confirmed in court that they did not
know Mr. Pascoe from previous cases and did not know his address. In fact, the source asserts
that Mr. Pascoe was not presented with a personal search warrant until 16 April 2019, when
his lawyer received a copy of the case file, even though his arrest had taken place on
27 September 2018.
53.
It is asserted that Mr. Pascoe was held incommunicado from the moment of his arrest
on 27 September 2018 until 2 October 2018, when one of his relatives was first able to visit
him. Reportedly, the authorities did not inform Mr. Pascoe’s family of his arrest or of his
whereabouts, and they only found out through a third party when they visited Mr. Pascoe’s
apartment as he was not answering any phone calls. The source asserts that this was contrary
to principle 16 of the Body of Principles and article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.
54.
Moreover, the source asserts that Mr. Pascoe was physically beaten and coerced to
tell the police his address and confess to crimes that he had not committed, in a language that
he does not understand. Reportedly, no independent translation into English was provided
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
8
GE.25-03306
before his thumbprint was added to his alleged written confession, which he was forced to
sign. Moreover, Mr. Pascoe did not have a lawyer present at the time of his interrogations,
and the authorities denied him his right to remain silent.
55.
In addition, it is argued that Mr. Pascoe was not provided with a State-appointed
lawyer upon his arrest or on 30 September 2018 during his first appearance before a court.
Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe’s family hired a lawyer after they had found out from a third party
that Mr. Pascoe had been arrested. However, Mr. Pascoe was reportedly only able to have a
private meeting with his lawyer 12 days after his arrest, which, the source argues, impeded
his right to challenge the legality of his detention.
56.
According to the source, it is accepted by the judiciary that Mr. Pascoe did not sell
drugs to the informant on the night of his arrest. Reportedly, he was arrested on the basis of
allegations by the informant of “past crimes”, and no evidence exists to prove these past
crimes. Moreover, the source asserts that punishment for future crimes is not permissible
under human rights law.
57.
For the above reasons, the source concludes that Mr. Pascoe’s arrest and subsequent
detention lack a legal basis, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and article 9 of the Covenant. It thus asserts that Mr. Pascoe’s deprivation of liberty
is arbitrary and falls under category I.
b.
Category III
58.
The source argues that Mr. Pascoe’s detention is arbitrary under category III as he has
been denied the right to due process.
59.
The source argues that no fair or independent trial was held for Mr. Pascoe. It contends
that the authorities failed to provide Mr. Pascoe with an independent interpreter at the time
of his arrest and during his court appearances, in violation of article 14 (3) (f) of the Covenant.
60.
The source further argues that Mr. Pascoe was subjected to physical and mental
coercion during his arrest: Mr. Pascoe was pushed to the ground, and sustained a head injury
as a result; and the authorities threatened the well-being of a member of his family unless he
informed them of his own address.
61.
Moreover, Mr. Pascoe was forced to confess to crimes that he did not commit and to
sign a confession in a language that he does not understand. Reportedly, the authorities
threatened to physically assault a member of Mr. Pascoe’s family unless he informed them
of his own address. Furthermore, during the house search and prior to meeting with the public
prosecution, he was reportedly physically and mentally coerced to answer questions and
thereby incriminate himself, and he was told by the interpreter to “agree to everything … to
make it easier” for himself and that he could change his statement later with his lawyer. In
fear of further coercion, Mr. Pascoe reportedly agreed to everything that was asked of him.
62.
The source submits that it is not possible to confirm whether the written document, in
Arabic, that Mr. Pascoe had been forced to sign did in fact contain his statement. Reportedly,
neither Mr. Pascoe nor his lawyer had access to an original copy of the document until
16 April 2019, after Mr. Pascoe’s appearance before the Court of First Instance.
63.
In addition, the source notes that despite the fact that Mr. Pascoe had sustained a
visible head injury during his arrest, and vomited on several occasions, he was not seen by a
doctor. According to the source, Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer was not permitted, under Qatari law,
to ask the police officers in court whether Mr. Pascoe had been beaten or if he had sustained
any injuries, as their replies could have been self-incriminating.3 The source submits that
Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer therefore asked the police in court whether Mr. Pascoe had seen a doctor
during his interrogation, and the police confirmed he had not. However, Mr. Pascoe and his
defence were told that since there was no “proof” of the beating, it was deemed not to have
happened, and the allegations of ill-treatment were therefore dismissed from the case by the
Court. The source submits that this was contrary to article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.
3 Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 23 of 2004), art. 91; and Civil and Commercial Procedure Law
(Law No. 13 of 1990), art. 290.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
9
64.
It is asserted that Mr. Pascoe was only informed of the charges against him on 2 April
2019, 188 days after his arrest on 27 September 2018. Moreover, Mr. Pascoe and his lawyer
were given access to the case file only after the first hearing before the Court of First Instance,
on 16 April 2019, 202 days after Mr. Pascoe’s arrest. Reportedly, after this hearing,
Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer was provided with a copy of the case file in Arabic. As such, the source
contends that Mr. Pascoe was not allowed to have adequate time or facilities for the
preparation of his defence or to communicate with his lawyer, in violation of article 14 (3) (b)
of the Covenant.
65.
The source argues that no fair or independent trial was held for Mr. Pascoe, as no
evidentiary chain connected Mr. Pascoe and the items allegedly found in his apartment.
According to the source, the Court of First Instance assumed that Mr. Pascoe was guilty, as
it sentenced him to the maximum sentence for drug trafficking, rather than under article 37
of Law No. 9 of 1987, according to which the cultivation for personal use was subject to a
sentence of up to 5 years and not less than 2 years, or to drug treatment. Moreover, the source
asserts that inaccurate evidence was added to Mr. Pascoe’s case, because the Court, instead
of considering 1,650 grams as the total weight of the bag containing the drugs, plastic bottles,
rope and other items, considered an alleged weight of 82 kilograms of drugs. The source
argues that this inaccurate weight altered the perspective of Mr. Pascoe’s case and that there
is no remedy available in cases of inaccuracy. It notes that normal turnaround for the British
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with regard to freedom of information
requests is 21 days, but as Mr. Pascoe’s case involves a high – and inaccurate – quantity of
drugs, the British authorities have called his case “complex” and require a longer period to
answer.
66.
Moreover, the only witness – Mr. Pascoe’s friend who acted as an informant to the
authorities – was given permission to leave the country and therefore was not cross-examined
in court as part of the defence, in violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant.
67.
The source reports that although the interpreters should be made available free of
charge, in practice they are not. It is asserted that upon his arrest and during his detention and
trial, Mr. Pascoe was not given access to an independent interpreter, in violation of
article 14 (3) (f) of the Covenant.
68.
The source concludes that Mr. Pascoe’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary and falls
under category III, in violation of articles 9 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.
c.
Category V
69.
The source argues that Mr. Pascoe is being deprived of liberty on the basis of his
nationality, as a foreign, British national residing in Qatar.
70.
According to the source, although Mr. Pascoe’s friend and his friend’s relative were
first arrested for alleged drug offences, they were not held in detention and were allowed to
participate in an entrapment operation to arrest Mr. Pascoe. Although the operation failed, as
no drugs were bought or sold and no drugs were found in Mr. Pascoe’s possession, he was
nevertheless arrested. The source asserts that the difference in treatment by the authorities is
due to the fact that Mr. Pascoe’s friend and his friend’s relative have Qatari family and speak
Arabic.
71.
The source asserts that the travel ban imposed on Mr. Pascoe following his arrest
without any charges having been brought against him further demonstrates that his
deprivation of liberty is on discriminatory grounds. In contrast, Mr. Pascoe’s friend and his
friend’s relative were allowed to leave the country.
72.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the source concludes that Mr. Pascoe’s deprivation
of liberty is arbitrary and falls under category V, in violation of article 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
(b)
Response from the Government
73.
On 6 August 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
10
GE.25-03306
the Government to provide, by 7 October 2024, detailed information about the situation of
Mr. Pascoe and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as well as
their compatibility with the obligations of Qatar under international human rights law, and in
particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working Group
called upon the Government of Qatar to ensure Mr. Pascoe’s physical and mental integrity.
74.
The Government submitted its response on 31 October 2024, which was after the
deadline. The Government did not request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as
provided for in the Working Group’s methods of work. Consequently, the Working Group
cannot accept the response of the Government as if it were presented within the time limit.
2.
Discussion
75.
In determining whether Mr. Pascoe’s detention 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. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have
been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.4 In the present case, the
Government has chosen not to challenge in a timely fashion the prima facie credible
allegations made by the source.
(a)
Category I
76.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis.
77.
The source alleges that Mr. Pascoe was arrested on 27 September 2018 by Drug
Enforcement Agency officers in plain clothes and in unmarked vehicles, without being shown
an arrest warrant or being informed of the reason for his arrest. The source notes that it was
only on 2 April 2019, 188 days after his arrest, that Mr. Pascoe was informed of the charges
against him, and on 16 April 2019, 28 weeks after his arrest, that he was shown an arrest
warrant, during his first court appearance in his trial. While the Government, in its late reply,
submits that Mr. Pascoe was arrested under warrant in accordance with domestic law, the
source reiterates that he was detained without knowing the charges against him and without
seeing a warrant.
78.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is considered arbitrary under category I if
it lacks a legal basis. 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 procedures as are established by
law. The Working Group has previously stated that in order for deprivation of liberty to have
a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities
must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.5 This is typically
done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document). 6 Balancing the
source’s detailed submissions with the Government’s late reply, the Working Group finds
that Mr. Pascoe was not shown an arrest warrant or equivalent document during his arrest,
the thus finds a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
79.
Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested is to be informed,
at the time of the arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and is to be promptly informed of
any charges against him or her. The reasons for arrest must be provided immediately upon
arrest and must include not only the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual
specifics to indicate the substance of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity
of an alleged victim.7 While the Government, in its late reply, refutes the claim that Mr.
Pascoe was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and makes references to the relevant
4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
5 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
6 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests
made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25; and opinions No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59; and No. 85/2021, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
11
legislation, the source makes an unrebutted submission that Mr. Pascoe was notified of the
charges against him 188 days after his arrest. As such, the Working Group finds that article 9
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (2) of the Covenant were violated.
80.
Furthermore, the source submits that Mr. Pascoe was held incommunicado from the
moment of his arrest on 27 September 2018 until 2 October 2018, when one of his relatives
was first able to visit him. The source notes that Mr. Pascoe’s family was not informed of his
arrest or of his whereabouts, and that his family only found out about his arrest from a third
party and had to visit several prisons and police stations to find out where he was being held.
While the Government, in its late reply, refers to the Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Regulation of
Penal and Correctional Institutions as guaranteeing the rights of inmates of penal and
correctional institutions, it does not explain how these rules were applied in relation to
Mr. Pascoe.
81.
The Working Group recalls that holding persons incommunicado prevents prompt
presentation before a judge, as provided for in article 9 (3) of the Covenant,8 and violates the
right under article 9 (4) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court.9 Judicial
oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty10 and is essential in
ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Given that Mr. Pascoe was unable to challenge his
detention before a court, his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated. He was also
placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of his right to be recognized as a person
before the law under article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16
of the Covenant.
82.
According to the source, Mr. Pascoe was not permitted to contact his legal counsel
until the twelfth day of his detention and was not permitted to receive visits from family
members until the end of the first week of his detention. He appeared in court on
30 September 2018, without legal representation, and without having previously consulted
his lawyer, the British Embassy or a doctor. The Working Group recalls that a detainee must
be allowed to communicate with and receive visits from family members, subject to any
reasonable restrictions and conditions with regard to such contact. As the Human Rights
Committee has observed, giving prompt and regular access to family members is an essential
and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture and for protection against arbitrary
detention and infringement of personal security.11
83.
Accordingly, the Working Group finds that the right of Mr. Pascoe to contact with the
outside world was denied, in contravention of rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)12 and
principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles. The Working Group notes the source’s
submission that Mr. Pascoe was transferred between detention facilities without the family
being notified and that this lack of information constituted a further impediment to his right
to communicate with relatives.
84.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that Mr. Pascoe’s arrest
and subsequent detention were arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category III
85.
The Working Group will now consider whether the alleged violations of the right to
a fair trial and due process were grave enough to give Mr. Pascoe’s deprivation of liberty an
arbitrary character, such that it falls within category III.
86.
The source contends that Mr. Pascoe’s right to communicate with legal counsel was
violated, noting that he was denied any private contact with his lawyer for 12 days following
his arrest, until 8 October 2018. On 30 September 2018, Mr. Pascoe was allowed to meet
with his counsel for the first time, but the meeting took place in the presence of the authorities.
8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.
9 See opinions No. 35/2018, No. 9/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 45/2019 and No. 25/2021.
10 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
11 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58. See also opinion No. 84/2020, para. 70.
12 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74 and 75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
12
GE.25-03306
Moreover, the source further reports that Mr. Pascoe’s lawyer was not permitted to assist his
client during police interrogations or to attend searches of Mr. Pascoe’s apartment. In its late
reply, the Government submits that Mr. Pascoe did not request a lawyer, and nor did he
request communication with the British Embassy or express his desire to inform the Embassy
of his arrest, which he cannot be forced to do under article 36 (1) (b) of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. The Government notes that domestic legislation and
existing administrative measures have guaranteed the right of Mr. Pascoe to contact
whomever he sees fit and to request the assistance of a lawyer, in accordance with the
Criminal Procedure Code.
87.
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 such access is to be provided without delay.13 The
Working Group further reaffirms that legal counsel should be able to carry out its functions
effectively and independently, free from fear of reprisal, interference, intimidation, hindrance
or harassment. The authorities should respect the privacy and confidentiality of
communications between detainees and legal counsel.14 Considering the Government’s late
reply and the source’s detailed submission about Mr. Pascoe’s delayed and restricted access
to legal counsel and to consular representatives, despite his repeated requests, the Working
Group finds that the extremely limited access to legal assistance granted to Mr. Pascoe
violated his rights to equality of arms and to counsel under article 14 (1) and (3) (b) of the
Covenant respectively.15
88.
The source further claims that Mr. Pascoe was physically beaten and coerced to tell
the police his address and to confess to crimes in Arabic, a language that he does not
understand. Reportedly, Mr. Pascoe was forced to sign the written confession, and he was
physically coerced to add his thumbprint to it while his hands were still handcuffed behind
his back. The Government, in its late reply, refutes these allegations and submits that
Mr. Pascoe was not interrogated by force, but rather his statements and confessions were
taken officially during the investigation in the presence of an interpreter accredited by the
Ministry of the Interior.
89.
The Working Group notes with concern that Mr. Pascoe was reportedly suffering from
a head injury sustained during his arrest and was deprived food and medical care when he
signed the confession. The burden is on the Government to prove that Mr. Pascoe’s statement
was given freely. 16 While the Government, in its late reply, refuted these allegations,
Mr. Pascoe reportedly did not have access to his lawyer during his interrogation when he
signed the confession, as discussed above. The Working Group considers that confessions
made in the absence of legal counsel are not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.17
For these reasons, the Working Group finds that the authorities violated article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (1), (2) and (3) (g) of the Covenant and
principle 21 of the Body of Principles.
90.
The source submits that the authorities typed Mr. Pascoe’s coerced confession in
Arabic, with no English translation, and that he was told to sign it without the presence of an
interpreter. Neither did he have an interpreter during his trial. The Working Group recalls
that, according to principle 14 of the Body of Principles, persons who do not adequately
understand or speak the language used by the authorities responsible for their arrest, detention
or imprisonment are entitled to receive promptly in a language which they understand
information regarding the charges against them, the reasons for any order of detention, the
13 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 9 and guideline 8; Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55; and
A/HRC/48/55, para. 56. See also A/HRC/27/47, para. 13.
14 Basic Principles and Guidelines, principle 9 (para. 15).
15 Opinions No. 18/2018, para. 53; No. 78/2018, paras. 78 and 79; and No. 43/2020, para. 84.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41. For example, opinions
No. 40/2012, para. 48; No. 1/2014, para. 22; and No. 14/2019, para. 68. See also E/CN.4/2003/68,
para. 26 (e).
17 For example, opinions No. 40/2012, para. 48; No. 1/2014, para. 22; and No. 14/2019, para. 71. See
also E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
13
reasons for and details of the arrest, and their rights and how to avail themselves of such
rights and to have the assistance, free of charge, if necessary, of an interpreter in connection
with legal proceedings subsequent to their arrest. The Working Group finds that a reportedly
coerced statement that is provided without any legal or consular assistance, in a language that
one does not understand, constitutes a breach of article 14 (3) (f) of the Covenant and
principle 14 of the Body of Principles.18
91.
It is also alleged that, despite his requests, Mr. Pascoe was able to secure copies of his
case file and the evidence against him only on 16 April 2019, the day that his trial began at
the Court of First Instance. The source submits that Mr. Pascoe’s case file was replete with
fabricated evidence against him. The source further reports that during the trial, Mr. Pascoe’s
defence was not permitted to cross-examine the only witness in the case, who had accused
Mr. Pascoe on the night of his arrest. The Government, in its late reply, submits that all
judicial rulings against Mr. Pascoe were issued in accordance with the law, and were
compatible with the obligations of the State under international human rights law, most
notably the guarantees of a fair trial under article 14 of the Covenant.
92.
Considering the source’s submissions and the Government’s general response in its
late reply, the Working Group concludes that, by not allowing Mr. Pascoe timely access to
the evidence against him and by not allowing his counsel to question the only witness, the
authorities violated article 10 of the Universal Declaration and article 14 (1) and (3) (b) and
(e) of the Covenant.
93.
Furthermore, according to the source, on the same day of Mr. Pascoe’s arrest, the
authorities conducted a search of his apartment, without showing him a search warrant.
Reportedly, he was only shown a search warrant on 16 April 2019, 28 weeks after the search,
during the first hearing of his trial. Noting these submissions and those relating to the
authorities’ alleged failure to secure Mr. Pascoe’s apartment, and deficiencies in the chain of
custody relating to the purported physical evidence against Mr. Pascoe, the Working Group
finds serious violations of due process relating to the proceedings against Mr. Pascoe.
94.
Based on the foregoing, the Working Group determines that the violations of
Mr. Pascoe’s rights to due process and a fair trial are of such gravity as to give his deprivation
of liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III.
(c)
Category V
95.
The source submits that Mr. Pascoe is being deprived of liberty on the basis of his
nationality, as a foreign, British national residing in Qatar. According to the source, although
Mr. Pascoe’s friend and his friend’s relative were first arrested for alleged drug offences, they
were not held in detention and were allowed to participate in an entrapment operation to
arrest Mr. Pascoe. Although the operation reportedly failed, as no drugs were bought or sold
and no drugs were found in Mr. Pascoe’s possession, he was nevertheless arrested. The
source asserts that the difference in treatment by the authorities is due to the fact that
Mr. Pascoe’s friend and his friend’s relative have Qatari family and speak Arabic. The source
asserts that the travel ban imposed on Mr. Pascoe following his arrest without any charges
having been brought against him further demonstrates that his deprivation of liberty is on
discriminatory grounds. In contrast, Mr. Pascoe’s friend and his friend’s relative were
allowed to leave the country.
96.
In its late reply, the Government submits that the travel ban order issued by the Office
of the Public Prosecutor against Mr. Pascoe was in accordance with domestic procedure.
97.
Having considered the source’s submissions and the Government’s late reply, the
Working Group concludes that it does not have sufficient information to reach a finding as
to whether Mr. Pascoe’s deprivation of liberty was discriminatory on the grounds of his
nationality, under category V.
18 See, for example, opinions No. 34/2018 and No. 84/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
14
GE.25-03306
(d)
Concluding remarks
98.
The Working Group is extremely concerned about the source’s submission that
Mr. Pascoe has both physical and psychological medical conditions and allegedly lacks
access to medical care. The Working Group is compelled to remind the Government that,
according to article 10 (1) of the Covenant and rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson Mandela
Rules, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person, including being provided with appropriate
medical care.19
3.
Disposition
99.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Matthew Alexander Pascoe, being in contravention of
articles 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9,
14 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I and III.
100.
The Working Group requests the Government of Qatar to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Pascoe 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.
101.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Pascoe immediately and accord him an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
102.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Pascoe and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
103.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
104.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Pascoe has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Pascoe;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Pascoe’s
rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Qatar with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
105.
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.
106.
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
19 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/64
GE.25-03306
15
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.
107.
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.20
[Adopted on 13 November 2024]
20 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.