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.25-09432 (E)
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. 26/2025 concerning Amr Alaa El-Din Mohamed Attia
(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 19 November 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Amr Alaa
El-Din Mohamed Attia. The Government has replied to the communication. 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/2025/26
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 June 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
2
GE.25-09432
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Amr Alaa El-Din Mohamed Attia, born on 1 October 1987, is a national of Egypt.
Prior to his arrest, he worked as a mechanical engineer at the National Marketing Corporation
Ltd. Branch in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. His usual place of residence is the Safa District of
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
(i)
Context
5.
According to the source, Mr. Attia was arrested on charges of cursing and insulting
Saudi Arabia on social media.
6.
It is reported that the accusation came after screenshots were posted on a social media
account called “Egypt out of context” from another account purporting to be Mr. Attia’s and
containing insulting remarks about Saudi Arabia. Reportedly, the impersonating account was
verified as such, despite the fact that Mr. Attia’s actual account has never been verified.
Moreover, the impersonating account included pictures of Mr. Attia, acquired from other
websites.
7.
One of the screenshots from the account purporting to be Mr. Attia’s was from a post
that allegedly claimed that he had uttered the insults before his Saudi manager, despite the
fact that, in Mr. Attia’s nine years working in Saudi Arabia, he had never had a national of
Saudi Arabia as a manager. This, the source submits, is evidence that the impersonating
account was fabricated and had maliciously targeted Mr. Attia.
8.
The source reports that Mr. Attia first found out about the impersonating account after
some of his acquaintances contacted him to express concern about the content on the account,
which they thought was his, to which Mr. Attia responded that he had no knowledge of the
account. Reportedly, Mr. Attia decided to close his original account in order to prevent any
tampering attempts and until he could file a complaint against the page.
9.
Immediately after he closed his account, the “Egypt out of context” account posted a
message on social media saying, “even if you close your account, we will get you”.
Subsequently, the “Egypt out of context” account posted Mr. Attia’s personal information
publicly, including his full name, his workplace, his sponsor and his telephone number.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
10.
The source submits that, on 29 November 2023, at approximately 1.15 a.m., Mr. Attia
was arrested at his home by security forces, some in civilian clothing and some in uniform.
Reportedly, Mr. Attia was presented with neither an arrest warrant nor any justification for
his arrest. The same day, at approximately 3 p.m., the national security forces entered
Mr. Attia’s home to conduct a search, without presenting a search warrant.
11.
According to the source, after Mr. Attia’s family members asked several times about
Mr. Attia’s whereabouts, the national security forces revealed that he was being held at the
Northern Police Headquarters. However, when one of Mr. Attia’s family members went to
the Northern Police Headquarters to inquire about him, the authorities did not provide her
with any information.
12.
According to the source, following Mr. Attia’s arrest, the Saudi authorities pressured
staff at Mr. Attia’s workplace to fire him and publish a statement of his dismissal and referral
for investigation.
13.
On 30 November 2023, Mr. Attia was reportedly referred to the Prosecutor’s Office.
He was subsequently investigated by the General Directorate of Investigation, and his
detention was ordered for five days pending investigation.
14.
The source submits that, after 5 days, Mr. Attia’s detention was further extended to
20 days, after which he was transferred to Jeddah General Prison for Foreigners (Shumaisi).
During that period, Mr. Attia’s family lost contact with him. They later received a response
on 29 December 2023 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, indicating that
Mr. Attia’s detention had been extended to 20 days starting from 4 December 2023.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
GE.25-09432
3
15.
On 6 December 2023, Mr. Attia was able to communicate with his family for the first
time since his arrest.
16.
The source reports that Mr. Attia’s family contacted his workplace, which refused to
intervene, despite Mr. Attia having worked there for five years. The source also submits that
Mr. Attia’s family member attempted to advocate for his innocence at the Egyptian Embassy
and Consulate in Jeddah, which are in the process of communicating with the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Mr. Attia’s family member has been in contact
with the Minister for Immigration and the Affairs of Egyptians Abroad.
17.
The source submits that Mr. Attia has not had access to a lawyer – either appointed
by the State or chosen by his family. Reportedly, Mr. Attia’s family tried to hire a lawyer but
was unable to do so due to financial constraints.
18.
The source also submits that Mr. Attia has not been brought before a judge, and no
investigation is being conducted. Reportedly, he was investigated only once by an officer,
when he arrived at the prison.
19.
According to the source, Mr. Attia is currently being held in pretrial detention at
Dhahban Central Prison, near Dhahban, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Since his arrest, his family
has not been able to visit him. However, the source notes that, from 6 October 2024, Mr. Attia
was to be allowed one telephone call per week and allowed to receive visits regularly.
(iii)
Legal analysis
20.
The source argues that Mr. Attia’s arrest and detention are arbitrary under categories
I and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
21.
The source submits that the security officers that arrested Mr. Attia failed to provide
him with an arrest warrant or any legal justification to justify their forcible actions, in
violation of article 14 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, ratified by Saudi Arabia in 2009.
22.
The source recalls that, under article 36 of the Basic Law of Governance, issued by
royal decree in 1992 and serving as a de facto constitution, no person shall be detained,
imprisoned or have their actions restricted except under the provisions of the law.
23.
Furthermore, the source argues that, although Saudi Arabia has not ratified the
Covenant, the principles against arbitrary arrest and detention may still influence the
country’s legal obligations through customary international law.
24.
The source recalls that article 119 of the Law of Criminal Procedure provides for the
right of detainees to receive visits. It further recalls that the Law ensures that detainees are
entitled to meet with their lawyers and family members under regulated conditions.
Nevertheless, since his arrest on 29 November 2023, Mr. Attia has been denied legal counsel
and visits from his family.
25.
The source argues that this violation is a breach of the standards set by international
human rights law, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). These rules, the source adds, emphasize the
importance of maintaining contact with family and legal counsel for detainees.
26.
Furthermore, the source asserts that the denial of the right to visits constitutes a
violation of article 17 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
27.
The source submits that Mr. Attia has not been brought before a judge since his arrest
on 29 November 2023, which directly violates his right to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
28.
Under article 14 (1) of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, every individual has the right to be brought promptly before a judge to
challenge the legality of their detention. The source asserts that the failure to present
Mr. Attia before a judicial authority also contradicts article 9 (3) of the Covenant, which
mandates that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly
before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. Mr. Attia’s
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
4
GE.25-09432
extended period of pretrial detention amounts to a denial of due process and underscores the
arbitrary nature of his detention. The source further argues that Mr. Attia’s prolonged pretrial
detention without being brought before a judge also violates the Law of Criminal Procedure,
which limits pretrial detention and requires that detainees be presented before a judicial
authority within six months.
29.
Moreover, the source argues, Mr. Attia’s continued detention without a trial and
without any formal charges constitutes a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, which
guarantees the right to liberty and security of person. The source asserts that Mr. Attia’s
prolonged detention, in the absence of legal justification or a fair hearing, further reinforces
the arbitrary nature of his detention.
30.
The source recalls that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of
international human rights law, enshrined in article 14 (2) of the Covenant. It establishes that
every individual accused of a crime is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This
principle is crucial in ensuring that individuals are treated fairly throughout the legal process,
safeguarding them from ill-treatment or punishment before their guilt is legally established.
31.
The source argues that Mr. Attia’s prolonged detention without a trial and the absence
of formal charges undermine his right to presumption of innocence. By holding him in
custody without bringing him before a court, the Saudi authorities are effectively treating him
as guilty, in violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant. Furthermore, Mr. Attia has been
denied access to legal representation and a fair hearing, prolonging the uncertainty
surrounding his case and depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself in court.
b.
Category V
32.
The source argues that Mr. Attia’s detention is arbitrary under category V as his arrest
and subsequent detention are based on his nationality, as he is a national of Egypt.
33.
The source submits that the stereotyping of Egyptians as national security threats
applies primarily to Saudi authorities, particularly in politically sensitive cases such as that
of Mr. Attia. In recent years, the alleged growing security collaboration between Egypt and
Saudi Arabia has strengthened the perception, within both Governments, that nationals of
Egypt – whether they express or are accused of expressing critical views about the Egyptian
or Saudi authorities – are considered political opponents. The source reports that there
appears to be an assumption that anyone critical of the Government of Saudi Arabia might
also be viewed as a political opponent by the Government of Egypt. According to the source,
this has resulted in harsher legal actions and arbitrary detentions of individuals like Mr. Attia,
not only due to their national origin but also because of their alleged political affiliations.
The source further asserts that the Government of Egypt has not provided sufficient consular
assistance to Mr. Attia.
34.
It is asserted that Mr. Attia’s detention exemplifies a broader pattern of discriminatory
treatment. In recent years, there have been several incidents of Egyptians being arrested and
sentenced in Saudi Arabia for expressing criticism against the Government of Egypt or the
Government of Saudi Arabia. The source argues that this represents an ongoing pattern of
targeting and criminalizing dissent, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism made. The
source asserts that Mr. Attia might face a similar fate, given the broader context of harsh
sentences and detentions imposed on those who are perceived as political dissenters, in
violation of the principle of equality before the law and the right to non-discrimination as
guaranteed by article 26 of the Covenant and article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. These provisions establish that all persons are equal before the law and entitled
without discrimination to the equal protection of the law.
35.
The source argues that the discriminatory treatment against Mr. Attia violates his right
to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The stereotype that Egyptians abroad are
often linked to political dissent or are a threat to national security compromises the
impartiality required for judicial proceedings. In Mr. Attia’s case, the source asserts that the
bias against his nationality and perceived political opposition are likely to have influenced
his arrest and detention, resulting in a legal process tainted by preconceived notions of guilt
rather than objective evidence. This lack of impartiality directly violates Mr. Attia’s right to
a fair trial by an independent and unbiased tribunal.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
GE.25-09432
5
36.
In addition, the source submits that Mr. Attia’s case highlights the broader practice of
targeting political dissent through transnational actions, a strategy employed to silence critics
beyond borders. Even though the post on social media attributed to Mr. Attia was fabricated
and did not belong to him, he has been treated as a political dissident, which explains the
reluctance of the Egyptian Embassy to intervene. This approach, the source asserts, reflects
a systematic effort to suppress perceived opposition, regardless of the credibility of
accusations, undermining fundamental human rights principles.
37.
The source concludes that Mr. Attia’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary and falls under
category V, as his liberty has been unjustly restricted due to his nationality and associated
stereotypes.
(b)
Response from the Government
38.
On 19 November 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the
source to the Government of Saudi Arabia under its regular communication procedure. The
Working Group requested the Government to provide detailed information by 20 January
2025 about the current situation of Mr. Attia. On 8 January 2025, the Government submitted
its reply.
39.
The Government states that the information provided by the source in the
communication includes claims and allegations that are unsubstantiated and without any
evidence. According to the Government, Saudi Arabia investigates these claims and clarifies
all the facts about them as part of its cooperation with international human rights
mechanisms.
40.
The Government submits that Mr. Attia, a national of Egypt, was arrested on
29 November 2023 pursuant to a warrant issued by the competent authority, after evidence
was found proving his involvement in a number of terrorist crimes punishable under the Law
on Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing. His case remains under investigation.
41.
The competent authority issued a detention order against Mr. Attia on the basis of a
legally valid warrant, as the crime he is detained for is classified as a major crime warranting
detention. The order permitted his detention due to his alleged involvement in terrorist crimes
punishable under the Law on Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing.
42.
The Government notes that, in Saudi Arabia, issuing arrest and detention orders does
not rely solely on the existence of a law permitting them. These orders must be supported by
strong evidence indicating that the accused committed a criminal act punishable under the
law. The orders are issued by a competent authority, and detention or imprisonment is
conducted only in designated facilities and for the period authorized by the competent
authority, as affirmed in article 2 of the Law of Criminal Procedure. Arrest and detention
procedures are subject to oversight by the Public Prosecution, which is part of the judicial
authority.
43.
The Government asserts that Mr. Attia is being held at the General Investigation
Prison in Jeddah Province (Dhahban) by the competent authority in accordance with the law.
His detention order has been extended under the law, and he has the right to challenge the
lawfulness of his detention under the law.
44.
According to the Government, Mr. Attia was informed immediately on the day of his
arrest of the reasons for his arrest and detention. He was made aware of his legal rights and
signed to confirm his acknowledgement. These rights include appointing a legal
representative or lawyer to defend him during the investigation and trial phases, in
accordance with article 4 (1) of the Law of Criminal Procedure. He was also informed of the
charges against him and his right to notify someone of his arrest and detention, as stipulated
in articles 36 (1), 101 (1) and 116 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, as well as article 22 of
its executive regulations.
45.
The Government states that the Egyptian Embassy in Riyadh was informed by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mr. Attia’s arrest and detention and the reasons for it, in line
with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Embassy representatives were allowed
to visit him at his detention location on 5 September 2024. Furthermore, Mr. Attia is entitled
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
6
GE.25-09432
to regular visits and communication and has so far had more than eight telephone calls with
his family members. Visits are scheduled regularly, but his family has not attended.
46.
In this regard, the Government notes that the law grants investigative authorities the
right to restrict the accused’s contact with others for a specified period, but only under
exceptional investigative circumstances and without violating the accused’s right to
communicate with their relatives or legal representative. This is subject to strict limitations,
and Saudi laws criminalize torture and impose penalties for it. The Law on Combating
Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing prohibits preventing the accused from contact with
others except under narrowly defined exceptional circumstances set forth by law. Instructions
from the Public Prosecutor emphasize that isolating the accused from others should be an
exception.
47.
The Government notes that Mr. Attia’s case is still under investigation, and legal
proceedings are ongoing. Moreover, Mr. Attia has received the necessary medical care and
remains in good health.
48.
The Government claims that the right to challenge the lawfulness of arrest or detention
is guaranteed for every detained person under article 115 of the Law of Criminal Procedure.
The Public Prosecution is an independent entity and part of the judiciary under the law, with
no interference in its work.
49.
The laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee that any defendant is tried before a competent,
independent court in a fair and public trial.
50.
Furthermore, the Government states that Saudi criminal law includes clear and precise
legal provisions that define criminal acts and the corresponding penalties. All Saudi laws are
clearly and precisely formulated, free of ambiguity or vague terms. Moreover, Saudi laws
explicitly criminalize terrorism and penalize its perpetrators. The Law on Combating Crimes
of Terrorism and its Financing provides a clear definition of terrorist acts and terrorist
financing, in line with international standards and the international obligations of Saudi
Arabia. Similarly, the Anti-Cybercrime Law provides a clear definition of cybercrimes,
aiming to reduce their occurrence by clearly identifying these offences and their respective
penalties.
51.
Saudi Arabia affirms that it protects and promotes human rights by applying the
principle of legality: penalties are personal, and no crime or punishment exists without a
statutory or legal basis. The laws of Saudi Arabia uphold the principle of the presumption of
innocence.
52.
Saudi Arabia affirms that it respects and guarantees the right to freedom of opinion,
expression and thought. Everyone is entitled to exercise this right as long as it does not
infringe on public order, society, individuals or foundational values. This limitation is in line
with relevant international standards, including article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
53.
No one is detained in Saudi Arabia for exercising their rights and freedoms. All
citizens and residents, men and women alike, enjoy their rights and freedoms without
discrimination under the applicable laws of Saudi Arabia. No group, regardless of its
designation or terminology, has preferential access to these rights. Anyone whose rights are
violated can file a complaint through the available legal remedies. Saudi laws prohibit any
criminalization or punishment for expressing one’s political opinions or for one’s nationality.
No one in Saudi Arabia is sentenced to prison or other penalties for discriminatory reasons,
whether based on political views, nationality or any other factor.
54.
Moreover, the Government states that all individuals are equal before the law, with
the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
55.
The laws of Saudi Arabia ensure that every individual is entitled to fair procedures
and a just trial before an impartial, independent and public judiciary. The judiciary in Saudi
Arabia derives its authority and principles from Islamic sharia, which mandates justice as the
foundation of governance and guarantees judicial independence.
56.
The Government submits that the Human Rights Commission has monitored the
individual’s case, verifying that all procedures taken were lawful and in compliance with
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
GE.25-09432
7
applicable laws and regulations, and has found no violations of human rights laws and has
noted no instances of rights being breached.
57.
The Government affirms that the measures taken against Mr. Attia are in compliance
with both national and international standards, including article 14 of the Arab Charter on
Human Rights, articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 4
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
58.
Moreover, the Government contends that the measures taken in this case comply with
reasonable time limits and the law. Mr. Attia’s detention falls within the legally prescribed
period. The law mandates that the time spent in detention is deducted from the prison
sentence once it is handed down. Saudi laws provide that anyone who has suffered harm due
to malicious accusations or extended detention beyond the legally prescribed period may seek
compensation from the competent court that handled the original case.
59.
All prisons and detention centres are subject to inspections and oversight, and any
violations are addressed promptly. To strengthen oversight mechanisms and protect
detainees’ and prisoners’ rights, the Human Rights Commission conducts unannounced visits
to prisons and detention centres as permitted by its organizational mandate. It receives and
investigates human rights complaints, taking legal action as needed. The National Society for
Human Rights, a civil society organization, also visits these facilities and handles complaints.
60.
The Government further asserts that, under Saudi law, suspects are detained for
investigation for specified, limited periods. If further detention is required for investigative
purposes, the suspect is referred to the competent court, which issues a judicial order to
extend detention for a fixed period. The suspect also retains the right to challenge the legality
of their detention.
61.
The Government claims that Mr. Attia’s arrest was due to allegations of terrorist
crimes punishable under the Law on Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing.
Under no circumstances can these terrorist crimes be justified on political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar grounds. This principle was affirmed by
the Security Council in its resolution 1566 (2004).
62.
Lastly, Saudi Arabia reminds the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the need
to adhere fully to its methods of work and the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure
Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council, in particular articles 6 (a), (b) and (c), 9 (a)
and (d), 12 (a) and (b), and 13 (b) of the latter.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
63.
In its additional comments, the source contends that the Government failed to specify
the alleged terrorist acts, their location, timing or any evidence substantiating the allegations.
This lack of clarity violates the principles of legal certainty and due process.
64.
The source contends that, contrary to the Government’s statements that Mr. Attia was
informed of the charges upon his arrest, in reality the only claim communicated to him
informally was “insulting Saudi Arabia on social media”, which is unrelated to terrorism and
is an exercise of freedom of expression protected under human rights standards.
65.
Furthermore, the source argues that, although the Government mentions that the
detention order was issued due to Mr. Attia’s involvement in major crimes, it did not provide
additional evidence or context.
66.
The source asserts that Mr. Attia has been detained since 29 November 2023 and that
this detention period is not “legally justified”, in violation of international standards. While
the Government asserts that the detention is conducted “within reasonable time limits”,
Mr. Attia has been detained without investigation sessions being conducted and without
being referred to trial. No clear timeline or justification for the prolonged pretrial detention
has been provided by the Government. The source contends that the excessive length of
Mr. Attia’s detention raises questions about judicial independence and the effective oversight
of these decisions. Also, since his arrest, Mr. Attia has been subjected to only one
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
8
GE.25-09432
interrogation session, and he has not been presented before a prosecutor or a judge at any
point.
67.
The source adds that this extended detention without trial contradicts the
Government’s assertion that Mr. Attia’s detention is subject to judicial review and that every
individual is entitled to fair procedures and just trial.
68.
The source notes that Mr. Attia’s family member is unable to visit him in his detention
facility due to her fear of reprisal.
69.
The source further notes that, in its response, the Government asserts that Mr. Attia’s
actions are classified as “major crimes” under counter-terrorism laws. However, it argues
that the vague definition of terrorism in Saudi law allows for the criminalization of lawful
activities such as expressing opinions on social media.2
70.
Moreover, the source contends that, while the Government asserts that Mr. Attia
retains the right to challenge his detention, his inability to access legal counsel due to the
high costs renders this right ineffective. In addition, given that he has no relatives in Saudi
Arabia, no one has been able to file an appeal against his detention orders on his behalf.
Furthermore, contrary to the Government’s statements, Mr. Attia was not appointed with a
lawyer.
71.
The source claims that, for clarity and transparency, the Saudi authorities should
specify the charges against Mr. Attia, supported by credible evidence and legal justification,
as accusing him of “terrorism crimes” under the Law on Combating Crimes of Terrorism and
its Financing, without specifying the nature of the crime and when and where it was
committed or planned for, is not enough to detain him for 14 months. In the absence of
specific charges, he should be released immediately. If specific charges exist, they must be
clearly defined, and Mr. Attia should be presented promptly before an independent judicial
authority for a fair trial.
2.
Discussion
72.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
73.
In determining whether Mr. Attia’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 human rights 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.3
74.
The source argued that Mr. Attia’s detention is arbitrary and falls under categories I
and V. The Working Group will examine these claims in turn.
(a)
Category I
75.
The source submits that Mr. Attia’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category
I because it lacks a legal basis. The source argues that, when security officers arrested
Mr. Attia on 29 November 2023 at 1.15 a.m., they failed to provide him with an arrest warrant
or any justification for the arrest. In its response, the Government contends that Mr. Attia
was arrested on 29 November 2023 pursuant to a warrant issued by the competent authority,
and that he was immediately informed on the same day as his arrest of the reasons for his
arrest and detention, as well as the charges against him.
76.
The Working Group notes that persons who are detained have the right to be promptly
informed of the charges against them. This is inherent in article 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights as well as principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles. The Working
Group has previously stated that, in order for the 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
2 See https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/01/640852.
3 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
GE.25-09432
9
that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.4 This is typically done through
an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document). The reasons for arrest must be
provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the general legal basis for 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.5
77.
The Working Group observes that the Government has not clarified whether the arrest
warrant was shown to Mr. Attia 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. The Working Group considers that the Government does not explain how the arrest
was conducted or who conducted it. This contrasts with the more detailed account provided
by the source, who states that Mr. Attia was arrested at his home by security forces in civilian
clothes and in uniform, without an arrest warrant or charges, and his home was later searched
without a search warrant. While the Government asserts that Mr. Attia 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. Attia was presented with an arrest warrant at the time of his arrest, irrespective of whether
one was duly issued. It finds that his arrest violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles.
78.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegation that, although Mr. Attia has been
held in detention since his arrest on 29 November 2023, he has not been brought before a
judge or a prosecutor. The Government acknowledges this in its response, stating that
Mr. Attia’s case is under investigation, and asserting that his detention falls within the legally
prescribed period
79.
Principle 37 of the Body of Principles provides that any “person detained on a criminal
charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after
his arrest”. International human rights standards specify that the maximum time limit for
bringing a detained person before the competent authority is 48 hours and make clear that
any delay must be absolutely exceptional and justified.6 Furthermore, judicial oversight of
detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that
detention has a legal basis.7
80.
Liberty is acknowledged under article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as the core consideration with detention merely as an exception. Detention pending trial must
thus be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such
purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.
81.
In the Working Group’s view, the Government has not provided any reasons to justify
the delay of a year and five months to bring Mr. Attia before a judge, stating solely that his
detention falls within the legally prescribed period. Therefore, the Working Group considers
that Mr. Attia 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 contrary to Principles 11, 32 and 37 of the Body of Principles.8 Given that
Mr. Attia was not able to challenge the legality of his detention, his rights under articles 8
and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were also violated.
82.
Furthermore, the Working Group notes that pretrial deprivation of liberty, as a
precautionary and non-punitive measure, must also comply with the principles of legality,
necessity and proportionality to the extent strictly necessary in a democratic society. It may
be imposed only within the limits strictly necessary to ensure that the efficient undertaking
of investigations is not impeded nor the action of justice evaded, and provided that the
competent authority substantiates and confirms the fulfilment of the aforementioned
requirements. Owing to the particularly restrictive nature of pretrial detention, use of this
4 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
5 Opinions Nos. 88/2017, para. 27; 3/2018, para. 43; and 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests made in
flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
6 Opinions No. 20/2019, para. 66; and No. 26/2019, para. 89.
7 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
8 Opinion No. 33/2020, para. 56.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
10
GE.25-09432
measure should be the exception, rather than the rule. The exceptional nature of pretrial
detention is a consequence of the presumption of innocence, according to which, in principle,
all persons subject to trial must be tried at liberty. In the interests of justice, liberty should be
recognized as a general principle of rule, and pretrial detention as an exception.9 Despite the
Government’s assertion that Mr. Attia was arrested based on charges of committing terrorist
crimes and that his actions are classified as “major crimes”, it has not substantiated what
these actions were nor provided sufficient information to demonstrate the need for pretrial
detention in these circumstances. The Working Group thus considers that Mr. Attia’s
detention has been carried out without the guarantees set forth in article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
83.
In the light of all of the findings above, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Attia’s
arrest and subsequent detention are arbitrary and fall within category I.
(b)
Category III
84.
Although the source does not make the case that Mr. Attia’s deprivation of liberty
falls under category III, the Working Group believes that it is clear from the substance of
some of the source’s allegations that they do in fact belong under this category as to the extent
that they are connected with Mr. Attia’s right to due process and fair trial. The Government
has had the opportunity to comment on the facts laid out above.
85.
The source has raised concerns about due process rights, denial of visitation and legal
representation, as well as undermining the presumption of innocence.
86.
The Working Group notes that according to the source, Mr. Attia has had no access
to a lawyer since his arrest, either a State-appointed lawyer or one chosen by his family, the
latter due to financial constraints. In its response, the Government states that Mr. Attia was
informed on the day of his arrest of his legal rights, including appointing a legal
representative or lawyer, and he signed to confirm his acknowledgement.
87.
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.10 The Working Group notes that the Government does not specify when or whether
Mr. Attia appointed a lawyer or was able to meet with his lawyer. In the absence of any
specific information from the Government to contest the source’s allegations, the Working
Group considers that the Government failed to respect Mr. Attia’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) 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, and of principles 15, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles,
rule 61 of the Mandela Rules, and principle 9 and guideline 8 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.
88.
Furthermore, the source argues that, since Mr. Attia’s arrest, his family has not been
able to visit him due to fear of reprisals. The Government responds that Mr. Attia is entitled
to regular visits and communication and has so far had more than eight telephone calls with
his family members. The Government adds that visits are scheduled for him regularly, but
his family has not attended. However, the Government has not rebutted the source’s assertion
that Mr. Attia’s family has been unable to visit him due to conditions created by the
authorities that have induced a fear of reprisal.
89.
The Working Group notes that giving prompt and regular access to family members
to a person deprived of liberty is an essential and necessary safeguard for the prevention of
torture and for protection against arbitrary detention and infringement of personal security.11
9 Opinions No. 37/2022, para. 60; and No. 13/2024, para. 62.
10 A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9 and guideline 8; CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1,
paras. 14 and 15; and opinion No. 86/2020, para. 78.
11 Opinion No. 84/2020, para. 70.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
GE.25-09432
11
Accordingly, the Working Group finds that the right of Mr. Attia to contact with the outside
world has been denied, in contravention of rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the Nelson Mandela
Rules12 and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles.
90.
The Working Group observes that Mr. Attia has been in pretrial detention since his
arrest on 29 November 2023 without individualized judicial determination. The Government
admits that Mr. Attia has been detained since 29 November 2023, exceeding 14 months
without trial, but states that the detention period is legally justified. However, it has not
provided any detailed or sufficient justification for this delay.
91.
The Working Group is of the view that the delay is unjustified and undermined the
presumption of innocence and Mr. Attia’s right to be tried within a reasonable time or to be
released pending trial, as guaranteed under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and principle 38 of the Body of Principles.
92.
In the light of the findings above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of
the right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give the detention of Mr. Attia an arbitrary
character under category III.
(c)
Category V
93.
The source submits that Mr. Attia’s deprivation of liberty stems from his nationality
as a national of Egypt and the associated stereotypes of Egyptians abroad as political
dissidents. The source argues that, although the post on social media attributed to Mr. Attia
was fabricated and did not belong to him, he has been treated as a political dissident, which
explains the reluctance of the Egyptian Embassy to intervene. In its response, the
Government affirms that all individuals in Saudi Arabia are equal before the law, with the
right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. The Government also
asserts that no one in Saudi Arabia is sentenced to prison or other penalties for discriminatory
reasons, whether based on political views, nationality or any other factor.
94.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when it
constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of
birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or
other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other status. In the present case,
the Working Group observes that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that Mr. Attia’s
nationality or perceived political opinion were the determining factor in his detention. Having
regard to the materials available, the Working Group is unable to conclude that Mr. Attia’s
detention was arbitrary under category V.
(d)
Concluding remarks
95.
In its 34-year history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of its
international human rights obligations in over 75 cases.13 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. It underlines that
States have the obligation not to engage in acts that could constitute crimes against humanity,
to prevent such acts and to punish the perpetrators of such acts.
96.
The Working Group lauds the expressed willingness of the Government to cooperate
with the Council and its various mechanisms, including the special procedures of the Human
Rights Council. In that context, 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.
12 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74 and 75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.
13 See, for example, decisions Nos. 40/1992 and 48/1995; and opinions Nos. 8/2002, 25/2004, 34/2005,
9/2006, 4/2007, 6/2008, 21/2009, 11/2011, 8/2012, 32/2013, 32/2014, 52/2016, 10/2017, 68/2018,
56/2019, 33/2020, 34/2021, 29/2022, 17/2023, 10/2024, 26/2024 and 71/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/26
12
GE.25-09432
3.
Disposition
97.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Amr Alaa El-Din Mohamed Attia, being in contravention
of articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary
and falls within categories I and III.
98.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Attia without delay and bring it into conformity with
the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
99.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Attia immediately and accord him an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
100.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Attia and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
101.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
102.
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. Attia has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Attia;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Attia’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.
103.
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.
104.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
105.
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.14
[Adopted on 7 April 2025]
14 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.