Opinion; Subjects: SAUDI ARABIA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-08057 (E) 170725 170725
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025
Opinion No. 1/2025 concerning Mohsen Saleh Nasser al-Awlaki
(Saudi Arabia)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 23 October 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Mohsen Saleh
Nasser al-Awlaki. The Government replied to the communication on 19 December 2024. The
State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
General Assembly
Distr.: General
17 July 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
2
GE.25-08057
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mohsen Saleh Nasser al-Awlaki, born on 1 January 1985, is a national of Yemen and
is an architect. His usually resides in Riyadh.
(i)
Context
5.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Awlaki was arrested in Saudi Arabia on 26 May 2021
for allegedly being a member of the Ansar al-Mahdi group, which follows a Muslim figure
claiming to be the “Mahdi” who will restore justice, and for posting related articles on social
media, shared intermittently since at least 2017, including fatwas, religious content and the
group’s sociopolitical stance on events in a third country.
6.
Reportedly, in Saudi Arabia, opinions from minority groups or critics of the
Government are often labelled as extremist. In this context, Mr. Al-Awlaki’s social media
posts were deemed controversial, though he was merely exercising his right to express
personal and religious beliefs.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
Mr. Al-Awlaki was reportedly arrested on 26 May 2021 at his workplace in Riyadh
by State security forces in civilian clothes, who did not provide an arrest warrant or inform
him of the reasons for his arrest. His workplace was searched by members of the security
services in civilian clothes without a search warrant, his phone and laptop were confiscated
without further explanation, and he was beaten and forcibly taken to Riyadh police station.
8.
He remained forcibly disappeared for three months after his arrest. His family, living
in a third country, tried to contact the Saudi authorities, but received no response. After three
months, Mr. Al-Awlaki was allowed a brief phone call to his family. He was then regularly
held incommunicado, with the authorities denying him contact and visits from his family.
9.
Reportedly, Mr. Al-Awlaki has been isolated from the outside world. Since his arrest,
the authorities have not disclosed any official information regarding his situation or
whereabouts.
10.
On 30 August 2021, Mr. Al-Awlaki was transferred to Dhahban prison in Jeddah.
11.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki has had no assistance by a lawyer of his choice
since his arrest or throughout his trial. His family is unable to appoint a lawyer for him owing
to financial constraints, and he was thus appointed a lawyer by the State. However, he was
only able to meet with his lawyer for the first time before a hearing on 26 July 2022, and it
is not known whether he has been able to do so again since.
12.
On 26 July 2022, more than one year after his arrest, Mr. Al-Awlaki was brought
before the Specialized Criminal Court, and he was informed for the first time of the charges
against him. It was the first time that he had appeared before a court since his arrest.
13.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Awlaki was subjected to a brief trial. The Specialized
Criminal Court held three sessions in total, the first on 26 July 2022 and the third on
7 November 2022.
14.
On 7 November 2022, the Specialized Criminal Court sentenced him to 20 years in
prison for being a member of the Ansar al-Mahdi group, supporting the alleged “Mahdi” and
promoting his ideas on social media, and to 80 lashes in one session for use of cannabis. He
was sentenced under Royal Decree No. A/44, which criminalizes affiliation with foreign
groups, prescribing 3 to 20 years in prison for involvement with extremist religious or
ideological currents or groups or with entities classified as terrorist organizations at the
national, regional or international level, including support, adoption of their ideas or
expression of sympathy.
15.
Mr. Al-Awlaki was also sentenced under article 6 of the Repression of Cybercrime
Act, which punishes cybercrimes with up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 3 million
riyals. Such crimes include producing or distributing material that undermines public order,
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
3
religious values or public morals, or promoting illegal activities such as trafficking in
persons, drug trafficking or pornography through the Internet or computer devices.
16.
Reportedly, he did not appeal decision of the Specialized Criminal Court owing to the
authorities’ alleged practice of doubling sentences on appeal, a pattern reportedly observed
in similar cases.
17.
The source notes that Mr. Al-Awlaki is currently being held in Dhahban prison in
Jeddah, where he is serving his sentence.
(iii)
Legal analysis
18.
The source submits that the arrest and detention of Mr. Al-Awlaki is arbitrary under
categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
19.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under
category I because it has no legal basis. The source asserts that Mr. Al-Awlaki was arrested
without an arrest warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. It was only
during his incommunicado detention that it became known that he was among those arrested
for publicly and peacefully expressing their opinion and beliefs on social media.
20.
It is argued that Mr. Al-Awlaki was not informed of his rights or granted legal
assistance after his arrest. He was informed of the charges against him only on 26 July 2022,
the day of his trial, when the prosecutor requested a 20-year prison sentence. The source
recalls the Working Group’s assertion that the authorities must promptly inform detainees of
the charges to justify deprivation of liberty, and that failure to do so violates articles 3 and 9
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 10 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, making his
arrest and detention arbitrary under category I.2
b.
Category II
21.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under
category II since it results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles
18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
22.
The source submits Mr. Al-Awlaki was sentenced to 20 years in prison and 80 lashes
for allegedly belonging to the Ansar al-Mahdi group and supporting the “Mahdi” on social
media. These actions, deemed hostile to the State Party’s security, were considered a
conspiracy against the Government and a threat to the Kingdom.
23.
The source asserts that depriving Mr. Al-Awlaki of his freedom of speech for not
aligning with the official beliefs in Saudi Arabia demonstrates the absence of freedom of
expression. His heavy prison sentence and corporal punishment violate articles 7, 19 and
20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
24.
The source further argues that the indictment by the prosecution was aimed at
suppressing dissent by labelling it a threat to national security. In reality, Mr. Al-Awlaki was
exercising his right to freedom of conscience, opinion and expression. The source notes that
the right to freedom of expression, as outlined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
25.
Mr. Al-Awlaki’s social media activity consisted of peaceful political and religious
reflections. While his views may have diverged from the official stance, there is no evidence
to suggest that his posts incited violence or unlawful action. The source argues that his
statements should be seen as peaceful expressions of dissent, not as a concrete threat to
national security. Therefore, any legal action or sanction against him violates his right to
2 Opinion No. 71/2019, para. 71. See also opinions No. 10/2015, para. 34; and No. 46/2019, para. 51.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
4
GE.25-08057
freedom of expression under international human rights law and cannot be justified without
genuine security risks.
26.
The source contends that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s arrest is part of a widespread crackdown
on journalists, bloggers, businesspersons and others peacefully expressing views on social
media that differ from official government policy, a trend that has reportedly intensified since
the Crown Prince’s rise to power. The sentencing to 20 years in prison and 80 lashes is a
direct result of Mr. Al-Awlaki exercising his right to freedom of expression, and reflects the
Government’s intent to silence dissenting voices in the Kingdom.
c.
Category III
27.
The source argues that the Government’s failure to comply with international
standards relating to Mr. Al-Awlaki’s right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to make his
deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.
28.
Mr. Al-Awlaki was detained for more than a year without trial, charge or opportunity
to challenge his detention. It was only on 26 July 2022 that his trial began before the
Specialized Criminal Court, which sentenced him on 7 November 2022 to 20 years’
imprisonment and 80 lashes.
29.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was denied access to a lawyer throughout his
pretrial detention, in violation of his right of access to legal counsel. He did not receive any
legal assistance, whether from a family-appointed or a State-appointed lawyer, until his first
court hearing, on 26 July 2022, when he met his State-appointed lawyer. In Saudi Arabia,
detainees typically meet their lawyers only at the first court hearing, and private
communication is rarely permitted, as in Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case. In addition, he was subjected
to a brief trial.
30.
The absence of a lawyer during the entirety of Mr. Al-Awlaki’s pretrial detention
constitutes a violation of his right to legal counsel, and thus his right to a fair trial and due
process, in breach of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
principles 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles and principle 9 of the United Nations Basic
Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of
Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court.
31.
The source notes that Mr. Al-Awlaki was tried by the Specialized Criminal Court,
which, according to the Committee against Torture, is insufficiently independent of the
Ministry of the Interior.3
32.
Institutional reforms since 2017 have aggravated the situation by placing the
investigative powers of the Ministry of Interior under the authority of the Public Prosecution
and the Presidency of State Security, both of which report to the King. Despite these reforms,
the Working Group has noted that concerns about the Court’s lack of independence remain
undiminished.4
33.
In such circumstances, the source asserts, there can be no respect for equality of arms
and the rights of the defence, contrary to article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
d.
Category V
34.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s detention is arbitrary under category V as it
constitutes a violation of international law on grounds of discrimination.
35.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki is an architect who supported a group solely
because of his religious beliefs. His detention must be understood in the context of the
theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia, where the official doctrine, Wahhabism, emphasizes
strict obedience to the monarch.
3 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 17. See also opinion No. 86/2020.
4 Opinion No. 86/2020, para. 83.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
5
36.
Reportedly, under Wahhabism, criticism of royal authority is viewed as a religious
offence. In such a theocracy, supporting someone claiming to be the Mahdi is considered
both a political and, more significantly, a religious transgression, criminalized under
anti-terrorism legislation.
37.
As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the overly broad definition of
terrorism in Saudi law includes such acts such as calling into question the fundamentals of
the Islamic religion on which the country was based or describing, explicitly or implicitly,
the King or Crown Prince as infidel, or challenges him in his religion.5
38.
The source asserts that Mr. Al-Awlaki was discriminated against based on his
religious and political opinions and was convicted on religious grounds following flawed
proceedings by a biased Court.
(b)
Response from the Government
39.
On 23 October 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 23 December 2024, detailed information about the
current situation of Mr. Al-Awlaki.
40.
On 19 December 2024, the Government submitted its reply.
41.
The Government affirms that the source’s submission contains false allegations and
claims without basis or proof. The Kingdom is investigating these allegations and clarifying
all the facts as part of its cooperation with international human rights mechanisms.
42.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was arrested on 27 May 2021, pursuant
to an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority, after evidence was found proving his
crimes of affiliation with and support for an extremist religious group, promotion of its ideas,
provision of financing to it, publication of material harmful to public order and use of narcotic
substances.
43.
Arrests and detentions are based on documented evidence of criminal activity and
comply with the law. Detention is supervised by the Public Prosecution and courts.
44.
Mr. Al-Awlaki was arrested by a competent authority in accordance with the law. He
was immediately informed on the same day of his arrest of the reasons for his arrest and
detention, his legal rights, including the right to legal representation during investigations
and trial under article 4 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and his right to notify others
of his detention, in accordance with articles 36 (1), 101 (1) and 116 of the same Code and
article 22 of the Code’s implementing regulations. He signed a statement confirming his
awareness thereof.
45.
The Embassy of Yemen in Riyadh was notified of Mr. Al-Awlaki’s arrest, and he was
granted consular assistance in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom and the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations.
46.
After the investigation, the Public Prosecution referred Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case to the
Specialized Criminal Court under article 15 and 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
article 3 (b) and (c) of the Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution Act, on the basis
of sufficient evidence, including his confessions, arrest and search reports and technical
findings. He was summoned to appear before the court under article 135 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
47.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was given the right to appoint a lawyer
or, if financially unable, to request a State-appointed lawyer. Mr. Al-Awlaki sought his
family’s help to represent him and requested the appointment of a lawyer at State expense in
accordance with article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Al-Awlaki and his legal
5 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 15; and communication SAU 12/2020 (available from
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25726),
p. 10.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
6
GE.25-08057
representatives attended the trial sessions in the presence of the public prosecutor, and the
indictment was read to him, and he was given a copy of it in accordance with article 160 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
48.
A preliminary ruling was issued, sentencing Mr. Al-Awlaki to 20 years’
imprisonment, starting from his arrest, and to punishment for intoxication, on the basis of
evidence established by the court.
49.
The Government notes that the court verified all evidence against Mr. Al-Awlaki,
respecting the Kingdom’s international obligations, and evaluated all facts fairly.
50.
Mr. Al-Awlaki and his legal representatives requested an appeal, and all case files
were submitted to the Specialized Criminal Court of Appeal, which upheld the initial ruling.
51.
The Government submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki and his legal representatives were given
a copy of the ruling and were informed of his right to appeal before the Supreme Court within
the period stipulated by law. They thus appealed, and the case is still under judicial
consideration.
52.
Mr. Al-Awlaki remains detained in the general investigation prison in Jeddah, a
known and designated detention facility. There are no secret places of detention in the
Kingdom. He regularly receives visits – 21 to date, the latest on 25 November 2024 – and
has received the necessary medical care and is reported to be in good health.
53.
The Government asserts that the right to challenge the legality of detention is
guaranteed under article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates appeal
procedures. The Public Prosecution, as part of the judiciary, is an independent body and free
from interference, under the Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution Act. These
provisions safeguards detainees’ rights and ensure the protection of their freedom and
security.
54.
The Public Prosecution presented evidence, including arrest records, statements and
confessions, in which Mr. Al-Awlaki, fully competent and acting of his own free will,
admitted to the charges before both the investigating authority and the judiciary, in
accordance with article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
55.
The Government asserts that all accused persons are entitled to a fair trial before an
independent and competent court. The Kingdom’s laws are clear and precise, with no
ambiguity. The Counter-terrorism and Financing of Crimes Act defines terrorism and its
financing in line with international standards, outlining procedures regarding arrest,
detention, legal representation, release, trial jurisdiction, offences and penalties. It also
mandates specialized centres to educate and rehabilitate detainees, supporting their
reintegration in society.
56.
The Government affirms the principle of legality, ensuring that no criminal penalty is
imposed without conviction for a prohibited act.
57.
The Government respects the right to freedom of opinion, expression and thought,
unless there is an infringement or transgression against public order, society or its individuals.
This restriction is consistent with relevant international standards, most notably the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
58.
The Government asserts that no one in the Kingdom is detained for exercising their
rights and freedoms. Legal remedies are available for those whose rights are violated.
59.
Furthermore, the Government asserts that the judicial system guarantees a fair trial,
with independent judges ensuring justice based on Islamic law, including article 46 of the
Basic Law of Governance, and article 1 and 49 of the Judiciary Act. The laws of the Kingdom
guarantee the presumption of innocence, and no penalty can be imposed without a fair trial
in accordance with sharia law. All persons are equal before the law and have equal rights to
legal protection.
60.
The Government submits that the Human Rights Commission followed up on
Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case and confirmed that all action taken had been legally sound and in line
with human rights laws. It found no violations and continues to monitor his case.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
7
61.
The Public Prosecution is independent, directly reporting to the King, and is part of
the judiciary, with no external interference in its work.
62.
The Government affirms a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the
executive. The judiciary operates independently.
63.
The Government refutes the source’s claims that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s detention is
arbitrary under categories I, II, III and V. The allegations contradict reality and are not based
on any evidence.
64.
The Government affirms that the action taken against Mr. Al-Awlaki aligns with
international human rights standards, including articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles.
65.
The law empowers the investigating authority to temporarily restrict the accused’s
contacts when necessary for the investigation, without affecting the right to contact family or
legal counsel. This practice is aligned with international standards, including the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules) and the Body of Principles.
66.
The Kingdom strictly regulates restrictions on an accused’s contacts, applying them
only in exceptional cases under the law. The Counter-terrorism and Financing of Crimes Act
guarantees contact with family, and the competent authority may limit visits or
communication for up to 90 days if required for the investigation, under article 20. Detainees
may file complaints under article 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
67.
The public prosecutor limits isolation to exceptional cases, with minimal duration and
requiring justification based on the crime’s seriousness. It must be reviewed by the regional
head of prosecution and cannot exceed the time frame set by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Detainees retain the right to contact legal representatives, and prosecutions are assigned to
monitors.
68.
All prisons and detention centres in the Kingdom are subject to oversight. The Public
Prosecution supervises criminal investigations and ensures legal compliance. The Human
Rights Commission and the National Society for Human Rights may conduct unannounced
visits and receive complaints, which are addressed through legal channels. Equal treatment
and access to redress are ensured through both government and non-governmental bodies.
69.
The measures taken in Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case comply with international human rights
standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
70.
The crimes for which Mr. Al-Awlaki was convicted, including his affiliation with an
extremist group, promotion of its ideas, provision of financing to it and use of narcotics, are
criminal offences which are not protected as political or ideological expression, as recalled
by Security Council in its resolution No. 1566 (2004).
71.
The Kingdom’s penal system follows the principles of necessity and proportionality,
ensuring that punishments are appropriate to the nature of the crime and are necessary to
protect society, security and stability. These principles underpin national legislation,
especially in combating terrorism and its financing.
72.
Mr. Al-Awlaki was sentenced under Islamic law for alcohol consumption, with
penalties applied only when strict evidentiary standards are met. The public Prosecutor
reviews such cases and oversees implementation in accordance with article 217 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, and article 156 of the Code’s Executive Regulations.
73.
Flogging as a discretionary punishment was abolished by a decision of the Supreme
Court in 2020. Discretionary punishments now include imprisonment, fines or alternatives,
while fixed Islamic law penalties remain as prescribed.
74.
The Government denies that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s social media activity constituted
peaceful political or religious expression. He was convicted of crimes including affiliation
with an extremist group, promotion of its ideas, provision of financing to it, harm of public
order and drug use, none of which can be justified.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
8
GE.25-08057
75.
Courts rely on thorough evidence, including search reports, witness testimonies and
expert opinions. Trials are comprehensive and ensure the protection of the rights of both
parties.
76.
The Government affirms that non-Muslim residents are free to practise their religion,
subject to the legal restrictions necessary to protect public order, morals and health and the
rights of others.
77.
Furthermore, the Government submits that it has taken major steps to combat religious
extremism and the sectarian and religious fanaticism that fuels it by promoting moderation,
tolerance and interfaith dialogue, while supporting global efforts against extremism.
78.
No individual in the Kingdom, including journalists and media workers, is sentenced
for discriminatory or sectarian reasons unless their actions infringe on public order or societal
values.
79.
The issuance of the Audiovisual Media Act in 2017, the establishment of two
independent bodies (the radio and television authority and the general authority of media
regulation), the establishment of many television channels and radio stations in multiple
languages, the publication of many print and electronic newspapers and the facilitation of the
use of social media outlets use indicate the expansion of the expression of opinion and its
protection. The King Abdulaziz Centre for Cultural Communication plays an effective role,
providing an independent platform for discussing societal issues, consolidating shared values
and promoting dialogue and understanding to strengthen national unity.
80.
According to the Government, Mr. Al-Awlaki was granted legal assistance. He was
informed on the same day of his arrest of the reasons for his detention and of his legal rights.
He requested representation by his brother, and a lawyer of his choice at the expense of the
State. This request was granted, and he met regularly with his lawyer for consultation at the
place of detention. The lawyer was given the facilities and time necessary to prepare
memorandums for his defence and submitted an appeal to the Specialized Criminal Court of
Appeal.
81.
The Government asserts that the measures taken against Mr. Al-Awlaki comply with
international human rights, including article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, principles 17, 18 and 38 of the Body of Principles and principle 9 of the
United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines.
82.
The Government refutes the source’s allegations that question the legitimacy of the
Specialized Criminal Court, asserting that it is an independent and impartial body established
under article 6 of the Judiciary Act by the Supreme Judicial Council. Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case
was heard in a fair and public trial by this legally competent court, which follows the same
procedures as other criminal courts in the Kingdom, and whose judges are appointed and
promoted according to strict legal criteria set by royal decrees and the Judiciary Act.
83.
The laws of the Kingdom guarantee the right of any accused person to a fair and public
trial before an independent judiciary, as the judiciary derives its authority and principles from
Islamic law.
84.
The Government notes that Saudi criminal law upholds the principle of equality of
arms to ensure fair trials. This principle includes ensuring equal treatment of prosecution and
defence, informing the accused persons of charges in a language that they understand,
guaranteeing access to legal assistance, allowing confidential communication with legal
representatives and providing sufficient time and resources to prepare a defence, all of which
were ensured in the present case.
85.
The Government refutes the source’s claims that Mr. Al-Awlaki was discriminated
against based on religion or belief. He was prosecuted for criminal offences, not for his
religious views.
86.
The Government emphasizes that no one is detained for exercising their rights, and
all individuals – regardless of gender, religion or origin – are equal under the law.
Discrimination is criminalized, with legal remedies available to victims. Saudi laws are clear,
accessible and designed to prevent arbitrary application. Reaffirming its commitment to
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
9
equality, legal certainty and human rights standards, the Government concludes there is no
violation in Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case under category V.
87.
The Code of Criminal Procedure includes legal texts that clarify criminal acts and
specify the penalties prescribed for them in a clear and precise manner.
88.
The Government reiterates that the Kingdom’s laws are precise, clear and free of
ambiguity. They are publicly available on official websites, allowing anyone to have access
to, understand and act in accordance with them. The Government states that Mr. Al-Awlaki
is in good health and has received the necessary medical care since the date of his arrest,
including specialist services and access to external hospitals when needed and free of charge.
89.
The Government affirms that it responds to the letters, appeals and reports submitted
to it and clarifies all the facts about them as part of its cooperation with international human
rights mechanisms. It hopes that this cooperation will be met with consideration of the
approved procedures and methods, which will strengthen the principle of cooperation.
90.
Furthermore, the Government reminds the Working Group, one of the special
procedures of the Human Rights Council, of the need to fully adhere to its working methods,
and to the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights
Council, in particular its articles 6 (a) and (b), 9 (e), 12 (a) and (b) and 13 (b).
(c)
Further comments from the source
91.
The source submits that, contrary to the Government’s assertions, the anti-terrorism
legislation under which Mr. Al-Awlaki has been prosecuted falls short of the requisite
standard of legal certainty, as consistently noted by various United Nations mechanisms.
92.
The source argues that, as outlined in the Government’s response, the charges against
Mr. Al-Awlaki, including the promotion of ideas and publication of material deemed harmful
to public order, effectively acknowledge that he is being prosecuted for peacefully exercising
his right to freedom of expression.
93.
Furthermore, the source disputes the Government’s claim that Mr. Al-Awlaki could
contact his family on the day of his arrest, asserting that he was held incommunicado and
forcibly disappeared for three months, and was only allowed a brief phone call after that
period to inform his family of his location.
94.
The source recalls that Mr. Al-Awlaki was first brought before a court on 26 July
2022, more than a year after his arrest, in violation of international legal standards and his
right to challenge the legality of his detention.
95.
The source argues the Government’s claim that Mr. Al-Awlaki could challenge his
arrest is unfounded, as he was denied key safeguards, including access to legal counsel, which
prevented him from pursuing any effective legal remedy.
96.
Contrary to the Government’s claims, Mr. Al-Awlaki was held incommunicado and
forcibly disappeared for three months, and was only allowed a brief phone call after that
period.
97.
The source argues that, while the Government has failed to provide any facts, material
evidence or proof to substantiate its claims that Mr. Al-Awlaki committed a number of crimes
provided for by law – including affiliation with and support for an extremist religious group,
promotion of its ideas, provision of financing to it and publication of material harmful to
public order – these claims clearly acknowledge that Mr. Al-Awlaki is being punished for
the peaceful expression of his ideas. The Government failed to show that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s
statements posed a real or imminent threat to public order, and without such evidence, his
conviction is unjustified.
98.
Furthermore, by stating that Mr. Al-Awlaki was accused of promoting ideas, the
Government has acknowledged that he is being prosecuted on the basis of his religious
convictions, either real or perceived, which amounts to detention on a discriminatory basis.
99.
The source contends that Mr. Al-Awlaki publications, presented as evidence by the
prosecution, did not pose any real threat, and were merely expressions of his personal
opinions, which differed from the ideas of the Government.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
10
GE.25-08057
100.
The source submits that the lack of transparency in judicial processes, as well as
restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, demonstrate that discrimination is a
reality in the Kingdom.
101.
The source disputes the Government’s assertion that Mr. Al-Awlaki was granted legal
counsel on the day of his arrest, stating he did not meet his lawyer until his first court hearing,
on 26 July 2022. He learned only then that he was being prosecuted under anti-terrorism
legislation, contrary to the Government’s claim that he was informed of the charges at the
time of arrest.
102.
Denying Mr. Al-Awlaki access to legal counsel during detention prevented him from
preparing an adequate defence. As a result, he was compelled, “fully competent and acting
of his own free will”, to “admit” to the charges attributed to him before the investigating
authority and the judiciary. In reality, Mr. Al-Awlaki acknowledged only being the author of
the publications shared on his personal social media account; he never admitted to having the
criminal intent required under anti-terrorism legislation.
103.
Furthermore, the Government failed to show intent by Mr. Al-Awlaki to commit a
terrorist act, as required by law. His statements do not meet the legal threshold for a terrorism
offence. The source claims that this indicates that he was presumed guilty, and the denial of
legal representation suggests an intent to secure a conviction rather than ensure justice,
undermining due process and the principle of equality before the law.
104.
The source rejects the Government’s assertion that Mr. Al-Awlaki was referred to an
independent an impartial court. It reiterates that the Specialized Criminal Court is a special
tribunal with jurisdiction over terrorism cases, composed of judges appointed by the Ministry
of Interior, which undermines its independence.
105.
The source argues that the Government did not clarify whether the investigating judge
considered alternative measures to pretrial detention, that the claim that it followed legal
procedures is insufficient and that Mr. Al Awlaki’s detention thus lacks legal basis.
106.
The source asserts that it has followed a rigorous, impartial process and that
Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case is supported by verifiable evidence from credible sources, including
United Nations reports, not merely media reports, as the Government suggested.
2.
Discussion
107.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
108.
In determining whether Mr. Al-Awlaki’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.6
(a)
Category I
109.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary as he was
arrested on 26 May 2021, without an arrest warrant and without being informed of the reasons
for his arrest. The Government responds that Mr. Al-Awlaki was arrested on 27 May 2021,
pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority, after evidence was found
proving that he had a committed a number of crimes. In its further comments, the source
asserts that it was only during his first hearing – on 26 July 2022 – that Mr. Al-Awlaki learned
that he was being prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation.
110.
At the outset, the Working Group notes the discrepancy between the arrest date
provided by the source and that given by the Government. However, it considers that the
one-day difference does not affect its findings as follows.
6 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
11
111.
The Working Group notes that persons who are detained have the right to be promptly
informed of the charges against them. This right is inherent in article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles. The
Working Group has previously stated that 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.7 This is typically done through
an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).8 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 details to indicate the substance of the complaint, such as the
wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.9
112.
The Working Group observes that the Government has not clarified whether the arrest
warrant was shown to Mr. Al-Awlaki at the time of his arrest. In this regard, the Working
Group notes the distinction between issuing an arrest warrant and showing it to a suspect
before the arrest. In the Working Group’s view, the Government does not explain how the
arrest was conducted or who conducted it. This contrasts with the detailed account provided
by the source, who states that Mr. Al-Awlaki was arrested at his workplace by security agents
in civilian clothes, who did not provide an arrest or search warrant, and was subsequently
beaten and taken to Riyadh police station. While the Government asserts that Mr. Al-Awlaki
was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant and informed of the charges the same day, it has
not explained how this was done or provided supporting details. The Working Group is thus
not satisfied that Mr. Al-Awlaki was presented with an arrest warrant at the time of his arrest,
irrespective of whether one was duly issued. It finds that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s arrest violates
article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2 and 10 of the Body
of Principles.
113.
The source further submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was forcibly disappeared for three
months following his arrest, during which time his family actively tried to contact the
authorities of Saudi Arabia to locate him. However, the authorities remained unresponsive.
It was only after that three-month period that he was allowed a brief phone call to his family.
Mr. Al-Awlaki was regularly detained incommunicado and denied the right to contact and
receive regular visits from his family. In its response, the Government asserts that
Mr. Al-Awlaki was informed of his right to contact whomever he deemed necessary to
inform them of his detention, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that
the Embassy of Yemen in Riyadh was notified and consular assistance was provided.
114.
Taking into consideration the source’s detailed submissions, in contrast to the
Government’s more general response – in which the Government merely affirms that
Mr. Al-Awlaki was informed of the right to contact whomever he deemed necessary, without
specifying whether he was indeed able to contact his family – the Working Group finds that
Mr. Al-Awlaki was denied his right to be visited by and to correspond with his family, and
was not given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world at the outset of
his detention, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful
regulations, in accordance with principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles and
rules 43 (3), 58 and 68 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Working Group recalls that prompt
and regular access to family members, and to independent medical personnel and lawyers, is
an essential and necessary safeguard for the prevention of torture and for protection against
arbitrary detention and infringement of personal security and is essential in ensuring that
detention has a legal basis. Given that Mr. Al-Awlaki was subjected to enforced
disappearance, he was unable to challenge his detention, and his right to an effective remedy
under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was violated.
115.
In addition, the source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was only brought before a judge
on 26 July 2022, more than a year after his arrest. In its response, the Government submits
that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case files were referred by the Public Prosecution to the Specialized
Criminal Court in accordance with domestic law, and that he was then summoned to appear
7 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
8 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.
9 Opinions No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59; and No. 85/2021, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
12
GE.25-08057
before the court. In its additional comments, the source reiterated that Mr. Al-Awlaki was
first brought before a judge approximately one year after his arrest, in violation of
international legal standards and his right to challenge the legality of his detention.
116.
The Working Group recalls that according to the United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing
human right, and is a judicial remedy that is essential to preserve legality in a democratic
society.10
117.
The Government has not provided specific dates on which Mr. Al-Awlaki was brought
before the court. The Working Group thus considers that Mr. Al-Awlaki was denied the right
to take proceedings promptly before a court to challenge the legality of his detention, in
violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 11, 32 and
37 of the Body of Principles.11
118.
The source further submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was sentenced to 20 years in prison
and 80 lashes under Royal Decree No. A/44 (2014) and the Repression of Cybercrime Act.
The Government does not dispute this claim, stating that the Counter-terrorism and Financing
of Crimes Act clearly defines terrorism and its financing in line with international standards
and obligations. The source, in its additional comments, argues that the anti-terrorism
legislation under which Mr. Al-Awlaki has been prosecuted lacks legal certainty, as noted by
various United Nations human rights mechanisms. In Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case, the source adds,
the scope of the anti-terrorism legislation has been expanded to criminalizing his activities
associated with his freedom of opinion and expression.
119.
The Working Group recalls that it has previously stated that vaguely and broadly
worded provisions, such as the anti-cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws, which cannot qualify
as lex certa, violate the principle of legality in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.12 The Working Group reiterates these findings in relation to the application
of these provisions in Mr. Al-Awlaki’s case, and therefore finds that his detention lacks a
legal basis, in violation of articles 9 and 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
120.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Working Group considers that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s
arrest and subsequent detention is arbitrary under category I as they lack a legal basis, in
violation of articles 8, 9 and 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(b)
Category II
121.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary as it results
from his exercise of the right to freedom of conscience, opinion and expression, specifically
from his affiliation with the religious sect Ansar al-Mahdi and alleged support on social
media for a figure claiming to be the “Mahdi”. The source notes that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s activity
on social media consisted of peaceful political and religious reflections, and that, while his
views may be seen as expressions of dissent, there is no evidence to suggest that his posts
incited violence or unlawful action.
122.
In its response, the Government stated Mr. Al-Awlaki was convicted of crimes
criminalized by law, including affiliation with and support for an extremist religious group,
promotion of its ideas, provision of financing to it, publication of material harmful to public
order and use of narcotic substances. The Government affirms its respect for the right to
freedom of opinion, expression and thought, stating that no one in the Kingdom is detained
for exercising their rights and freedoms, unless such exercise infringes on public order,
society or its individuals, a restriction that it claims is consistent with international human
rights standards.
10 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2 and 3.
11 Opinion No. 33/2020, para. 56.
12 Opinions No. 10/2018, paras. 54–56; No. 71/2019, para. 73; No. 30/2022, para. 80; No. 26/2024,
para. 101; and No. 71/2024, para. 119.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
13
123.
In its additional comments, the source argues that the Government’s response
effectively acknowledges that Mr. Al-Awlaki is being punished for peacefully exercising his
rights, under the guise of counter-terrorism. It further contends that the Government has
failed to establish how Mr. Al-Awlaki’s statements posed any real or imminent threat to
public order.
124.
The Working Group notes that restrictions placed on freedom of expression by way
of deprivation of liberty can be justified only when it is shown that the deprivation of liberty
has a legal basis in national law, does not violate international law and is necessary to ensure
respect for the rights or reputation of others, or for the protection of national security, public
order, public health or morals, and is proportionate to the pursued legitimate aims.13
125.
In the present case, the Government has not explained how these criteria were met.
Weighing the submissions of both parties, the Working Group considers that
Mr. Al-Awlaki’s conduct falls within the boundaries of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, which is protected under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and that he was detained for peacefully exercising those rights through his activity on social
media. Moreover, the Working Group is convinced that his detention also resulted from the
exercise of his right to freedom of thought and conscience, in violation of article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group refers the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
126.
The Working Group therefore considers that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty
is arbitrary under category II, as it resulted from his exercise of the rights and freedoms
guaranteed under articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(c)
Category III
127.
Given its finding that Mr. Al Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should take place. However, as his
trial has taken place, the Working Group will consider whether the alleged violations of the
right to a fair trial and due process were sufficiently grave to give the deprivation of liberty
an arbitrary character, such that it falls within category III.
128.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was denied access to a lawyer throughout his
pretrial detention, in violation of his right to legal counsel. The Government responds that
Mr. Al-Awlaki was informed of his legal rights, which included the assistance of an agent or
lawyer, and his signature was taken to confirm his knowledge of his rights. The Government
adds Mr. Al-Awlaki sought the assistance of a family member to be his representative and
requested the appointment of a lawyer of his choice at the expense of the State. Moreover,
the Government submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was able to meet the lawyer regularly at his
place of detention. The source contests the Government’s assertions, arguing that they are
inaccurate, as Mr. Al-Awlaki did not meet his lawyer until his first hearing before the
Specialized Criminal Court, on 26 July 2022, and it is not known whether he has been able
to do so again since then, which has impeded his ability to adequately prepare his defence.
129.
As the Working Group has previously observed, 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 must be provided without
delay. 14 The Working Group notes that the Government does not specify when
Mr. Al-Awlaki was able to meet with his lawyer. Moreover, the Working Group has already
established that Mr. Al-Awlaki was detained incommunicado and forcibly disappeared for
the first three months following his arrest. Absent an explanation from the Government for
this delay, the Working Group considers that the Government failed to respect
Mr. Al-Awlaki’s right to legal assistance at all times, which is inherent in the right to liberty
and security of person and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal, as established by law, in accordance with articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1)
13 Deliberation No. 8 (E/CN.4/2006/7, paras. 32–52), para. 43, and opinions No. 21/2017, para. 40, and
No. 63/2017, para. 55.
14 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines, principle 9 and guideline 8; and opinion
No. 86/2020, para. 78. See also CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, paras. 14 and 15.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
14
GE.25-08057
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group therefore finds violations
of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, principles 15, 17 and
18 of the Body of Principles, rule 61 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principle 9 and
guideline 8 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines.
130.
The source further submits that Mr. Al-Awlaki was tried by the Specialized Criminal
Court, which lacks independence from the Ministry of Interior. The source argues that
reforms since 2017 have worsened this situation by placing the investigative powers of the
Ministry under the authority of the Public Prosecution and the Presidency of State Security,
both of which report to the King. The Government rejects these claims, stating that the Court
was established by the Supreme Judicial Council under article 6 of the Judiciary Act, under
which the Council is granted the authority to create and structure courts. Judges are appointed
by royal decree, in accordance with article 47 of the Judiciary Act, after meeting specific
qualifications.
131.
The Working Group recalls its earlier jurisprudence in which it has established that
the Specialized Criminal Court is insufficiently independent of the Ministry of the Interior,15
a concern shared by the Committee against Torture16 and the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism.17
132.
Since the Government has not provided any information to cause it to depart from its
previous findings, the Working Group remains concerned about the independence and
impartiality of the Specialized Criminal Court and the extent to which the presumption of
innocence and the guarantees necessary for defence are ensured. The trial before the Court
thus contravened article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
133.
Furthermore, the Working Group observes that according to the source,
Mr. Al-Awlaki was charged with serious national security offences, and sentenced to
20 years in prison and 80 lashes after a brief trial. The Specialized Criminal Court held three
sessions in total, the first on 26 July 2022, and the third on 7 November 2022. The
Government, in turn, responds that courts in the Kingdom rely on thorough evidence,
including search reports, witness testimonies and expert opinions, and trials are
comprehensive and ensure the protection of the rights of both parties. As the Working Group
has previously noted, a brief trial for serious criminal offences suggests that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s
guilt had been predetermined, in violation of his right to the presumption of innocence under
article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
134.
The Working Group concludes that the breaches of Mr. Al-Awlaki’s right to a fair
trial and due process are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary
character, falling within category III.
(d)
Category V
135.
The source submits that Mr. Al Awlaki is an architect who supported a group solely
because of his religious beliefs, and that his detention must be understood in the context of
the theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia. The Government responds that he was arrested for
crimes under national law, including affiliation with and support for an extremist religious
group, promotion of its ideas, provision of financing to it, publication of material harmful to
public order and use of narcotic substances, which it states are unjustifiable. Moreover, the
Government affirms that it combats discrimination and treats all equally before the law. The
source further responds that, by stating that Mr. Al-Awlaki was accused of promoting ideas,
the Government has acknowledged that he was being prosecuted for his religious beliefs,
constituting discriminatory detention.
136.
The Working Group has already established that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s arrest and detention
resulted from the exercise of his rights under international law, falling under category II.
When detention has resulted from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a
15 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 73; No. 27/2023, paras. 102–104; No. 56/2023, para. 108; No. 10/2024,
paras. 116 and 117; and No. 71/2024, paras. 134–136.
16 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 17.
17 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 47.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
GE.25-08057
15
strong presumption that the deprivation of liberty also constitutes a violation of international
law on the grounds of discrimination, based on political and other views.
137.
The Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al-Awlaki was
based on his religion, and that it was therefore conducted on discriminatory grounds. The
Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or
belief.
138.
The Working Group concludes that Mr. Al-Awlaki’s deprivation of liberty violated
articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is arbitrary under
category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
139.
In its 34-year history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of its
international human rights obligations in more than 75 cases.18 The Working Group reiterates
its concern that this might indicate a widespread or systemic problem of arbitrary detention
in Saudi Arabia, which amounts to a serious violation of international law. The Working
Group stresses that States have the obligation not to engage in acts that could constitute
crimes against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed.
140.
The Working Group lauds the expressed willingness of the Government to cooperate
with the Human Rights Council and its various mechanisms, including the special
procedures. In this light and recalling its request for a country visit, which was reiterated on
24 August 2021 and 4 February 2022, the Working Group would welcome the opportunity,
at the Government’s earliest convenience, to conduct a visit to Saudi Arabia in order to
engage with the Government in a constructive manner and to offer its assistance in addressing
its serious concerns regarding instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
3.
Disposition
141.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mohsen Saleh Nasser al-Awlaki, being in contravention
of articles 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
142.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Al-Awlaki without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
143.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al-Awlaki immediately and accord him
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
Mr. Al-Awlaki and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of his 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 freedom of religion or belief and the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism, for appropriate action.
146.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
18 See, for example, decisions No. 40/1992 and No. 48/1995, and opinions No. 8/2002, No. 25/2004,
No. 34/2005, No. 9/2006, No. 4/2007, No. 6/2008, No. 21/2009, No. 11/2011, No. 8/2012,
No. 32/2013, No. 32/2014, No. 52/2016, No. 10/2017, No. 68/2018, No. 56/2019, No. 33/2020,
No. 34/2021, No. 29/2022, No. 17/2023, No. 10/2024, No. 26/2024 and No. 71/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/1
16
GE.25-08057
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 Mr. Al-Awlaki has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al-Awlaki;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Al-Awlaki’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Saudi Arabia with its international obligations in line
with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
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.19
[Adopted on 1 April 2025]
19 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.