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.25-09431 (E) 100725 100725
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. 31/2025 concerning Mohammed Ali Hussein Al Wadaei
(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 5 July 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Mohammed Ali
Hussein Al Wadaei. The Government replied to the communication on 28 August 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/2025/31
General Assembly
Distr.: General
11 July 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
2
GE.25-09431
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mohammed Ali Hussein Al Wadaei, born on 1 January 1964, is a national of Yemen.
He is a businessman and an Islamic preacher. He usually resides in Yemen.
(i)
Context
5.
The source submits that, since late March 2015, the Government of Saudi Arabia has
been directing a military coalition to support the Government of Yemen against the Houthi
movement.
6.
Reportedly, Yemeni nationals are often arrested in Saudi Arabia on various pretexts
and given long prison sentences. Some are detained for actual or alleged Houthi membership,
while others are arrested in Yemen for criticizing Saudi policies on social media and then
transferred to Saudi Arabia for prosecution.
7.
The source notes that Mr. Al Wadaei was previously arrested on 20 March 2015 by
Houthi militias for his political beliefs and criticism of the events of 2014–2015 in Yemen.
He was held in a prison in Sana’a for eight months and reportedly subjected to ill-treatment
before being released on 5 November 2015.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
8.
The source reports that, on 19 October 2022, Mr. Al Wadaei was arrested by security
forces of Saudi Arabia in uniform while he was travelling from Sana’a to Saudi Arabia
through the Wadi’ah border crossing, using an official residence permit. Reportedly, the
security forces of Saudi Arabia did not present him with an arrest warrant, nor did they inform
him of the reasons for his arrest.
9.
Immediately after his arrest, Mr. Al Wadaei was transferred to a detention facility in
Najran operated by the State security service and controlled by the Ministry of Interior, where
he was held for a period of two weeks. During that time, he was held and interrogated without
access to legal representation or the ability to contact his family.
10.
On 2 November 2022, Mr. Al Wadaei was reportedly transferred to Tarfiyah prison
in Buraydah, Qasim Governorate, where he is being detained.
11.
From the moment of his arrest on 19 October 2022 to 19 January 2023, Mr. Al Wadaei
was held incommunicado before being allowed to contact his family. The source notes that,
notwithstanding the monthly visits permitted by the authorities, his family, who reside in
Yemen, are unable to visit him because they cannot afford the high costs of visas, travel and
accommodation in Saudi Arabia. He is permitted to make one brief telephone call per week.
12.
Furthermore, Mr. Al Wadaei was reportedly held in detention without being charged
and without being brought before a judicial authority for a period of one year and four
months. On 12 November 2023, he was brought before a judicial authority, the Specialized
Criminal Court in Riyadh, which was established in 2008 to try cases of terrorism, for the
first time since his arrest. This was the first time that Mr. Al Wadaei was informed of the
charges brought against him. Reportedly, he was charged on the basis of the law on crimes
of terrorism and its financing and the anti-cybercrime law in connection to the posts that he
had made on his social media account concerning the dispute that arose between Saudi Arabia
and a third country following the killing of a Saudi dissident journalist in October 2018.
13.
The source submits that, although Mr. Al Wadaei was assigned a lawyer in May 2023,
it was only at his first hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court, on 12 November 2023,
that he was able to meet with his lawyer.
14.
On 14 May 2024, the Specialized Criminal Court reportedly sentenced Mr. Al Wadaei
to 19 years in prison.
15.
Following Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest on 19 October 2022, his family asked the
Government of Yemen to intervene. In response, Yemeni authorities sent letters to Saudi
Arabia in which they stated that Mr. Al Wadaei showed no hostility towards Saudi Arabia or
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
GE.25-09431
3
support for Houthi militias and had played a significant role in bilateral programmes between
the two countries.
(iii)
Legal analysis
16.
The source argues that the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Al Wadaei are
arbitrary, falling under categories I, II, III and V.
a.
Category I
17.
According to the source, Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest and detention lack any legal basis or
justification and are thus arbitrary under category I.
18.
The source reports that Mr. Al Wadaei was arrested without an arrest warrant and was
not provided with the reasons for his arrest, nor promptly informed of the charges against
him. Instead, he was notified of the official charges several months after his arrest during his
first hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
19.
Furthermore, the source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei was prosecuted and sentenced
on the basis of a law that does not meet the requirements of lex certa. His conviction is based
on provisions of the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing, which contains a definition
of a “terrorist crime” in article 1 that is, according to several special procedure mandate
holders, including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,2 and the Committee against Torture,3
broad and vague, thereby enabling the criminalization of a wide spectrum of acts of peaceful
expression and opinion.
20.
The source asserts that the vague and overly broad provisions used to prosecute Mr.
Al Wadaei do not respond to the requirement of the lex certa and lack legal certainty, which
makes it impossible to invoke any legal basis to justify his deprivation of liberty.
21.
The source further argues that, throughout the three months that Mr. Al Wadaei was
held incommunicado, he was placed outside the protection of the law and deprived of legal
safeguards. The source recalls that the Working Group has stated that no jurisdiction should
allow individuals to be deprived of their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods
without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas corpus.4
22.
According to the source, Mr. Al Wadaei was unable to challenge the legality of his
detention, given that he was not brought before a judge or court promptly in order to review
it. He appeared before the Specialized Criminal Court only on 12 November 2023. The source
argues that this unlawful deprivation of liberty is arbitrary and violates articles 3, 6, and 9 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
23.
The source argues he was denied legal assistance from the moment of his arrest, which
adversely affected his ability to challenge the legality of his detention, and recalls that the
Working Group has stated that the “judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard
of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis”.5
24.
The source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest and detention violate articles 3, 6, 8,
9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and lacks a legal basis and are thus
arbitrary under category I.
2 See communication SAU 12/2020, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25726,
p. 6.
3 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 16.
4 A/HRC/16/47, p. 2.
5 Opinion No. 72/2021, para. 85.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
4
GE.25-09431
b.
Category II
25.
The source argues that Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of liberty results from the exercise
of his right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed under article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and thus falls within category II.
26.
It is submitted that, during his first hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court, on
12 November 2023, he was informed of the charges against him, which relate to some of his
posts on social media, in particular the post concerning the killing of a Saudi dissident
journalist in October 2018.
27.
The source argues Mr. Al Wadaei was sentenced to 19 years in prison on the basis of
social media posts under the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing and the
anti-cybercrime law. The source recalls that, during Saudi Arabia’s last review, the
Committee against Torture expressed concern over the law’s broad terrorism definition,
which risks criminalizing peaceful expression.6 The Committee was further concerned about
detention without access to family or legal counsel for up to 90 days, 7 undermining
safeguards against torture. Notwithstanding recommendations to narrow the law’s scope to
protect non-violent expression, the Government of Saudi Arabia has taken no action.8
28.
According to the source, Mr. Al Wadaei was found guilty on charges that have a direct
connection to his social media posts related to diplomatic issues between Saudi Arabia and a
third country. Therefore, the source asserts that this falls within Mr. Al Wadaei’s exercise of
the right to freedom of expression.
29.
The source contends that, even in the hypothesis that Mr. Al Wadaei’s situation might
require a conviction, the sentence imposed upon him is not commensurate with the nature of
the alleged offences.9
30.
Given the reasons above, the source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of
liberty stems from the exercise of his rights to freedom of opinion and expression, in violation
of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thus falls within category II.
c.
Category III
31.
The source submits that the authorities’ failure to comply with international standards
relating to the right to a fair trial was so serious as to make Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of
liberty arbitrary fall within category III.
32.
The source argues that Mr. Al Wadaei was denied access to legal counsel from the
moment of his arrest on 19 October 2022. Although a State-appointed lawyer was assigned
to Mr. Al Wadaei in May 2023, he was able to meet with his lawyer only at his first hearing,
on 12 November 2023.
33.
The absence of legal counsel immediately after his arrest resulted in his inability to
prepare an adequate defence, including through the disclosure of information contained in
his criminal files. Those violations, the source argues, substantially undermined Mr. Al
Wadaei’s capacity to defend himself in his judicial proceedings.
34.
The source adds that Mr. Al Wadaei’s right to legal assistance, enshrined in articles 10
and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 17 and 18 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, were violated.
35.
Moreover, he was detained without charges for several months until his trial began.
He was first informed of the charges and reasons for his detention during his initial hearing
on 12 November 2023. The source argues this violated his right to a timely trial under
principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles.
6 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 16.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., para. 18.
9 A/HRC/22/44, para. 61.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
GE.25-09431
5
36.
Reportedly, Mr. Al Wadaei was convicted on the basis of his social media posts
without it having been proved that they constituted calls to violence that were likely to create
a danger justifying condemnation. It contends that the prosecution did not consider it
necessary to establish his guilt on the basis of concrete evidence.
37.
The source therefore asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei’s right to be presumed innocent,
enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 36 (1)
of the Body of Principles, was violated.
38.
The source submits that all of Mr. Al Wadaei’s trial hearings were held before the
Specialized Criminal Court. It recalls that the Committee against Torture previously
expressed its concerns about the Court’s insufficient independence from the Ministry of
Interior.10
39.
Judges in the Specialized Criminal Court are appointed by the Supreme Judicial
Council. Under the Law of the Judiciary of 2007, the Council is comprised of a Chair and 10
members, 7 of whom are appointed directly by the King, in addition to the Director of the
Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution, which was replaced by the Public
Prosecution Service in 2017. The source argues that, because of this external influence, the
Court cannot be considered an impartial or independent body.11
40.
According to the source, Mr. Al Wadaei was tried by a court lacking independence,
violating his right to a fair trial under articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The source argues his conviction exemplifies the use of the Specialized
Criminal Court as a tool to prosecute peaceful critics with false terrorism charges.
41.
For these reasons, the source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of liberty is
arbitrary under category III.
d.
Category V
42.
The source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest, prosecution and treatment are the
direct result of his political opinions, which led to his unequal treatment before the law.
43.
It is argued that Mr. Al Wadaei was arrested and detained for his posts on his social
media account. Moreover, the source asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei was subsequently tried
before the Specialized Criminal Court and sentenced to a lengthy prison term – solely on the
basis of his social media posts – on terrorism charges, even though he had no connection to
terrorism.
44.
According to the source, Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest, treatment and lengthy sentence
suggest that he was arrested on the basis of his political opinions and for peacefully sharing
his views on social media.
45.
The source concludes that Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of liberty contravenes
articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 5 (1) of the Body
of Principles, and is arbitrary under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
46.
On 5 July 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the
Government of Saudi Arabia under its regular communications procedure. The Working
Group requested the Government to provide detailed information by 4 September 2024 about
the current situation of Mr. Al Wadaei.
47.
On 28 August 2024, the Government submitted its reply.
48.
The Government submits that the information contained in the communication
submitted by the source includes false allegations and claims without any basis or proof.
49.
The Government states that Mr. Al Wadaei, a Yemeni national, was arrested on 19
October 2022 under a warrant issued by the competent authority, based on evidence linking
10 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 17.
11 Opinion No. 22/2019, para. 74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
6
GE.25-09431
him to serious terrorist offences under the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing. These
include supporting a terrorist entity and spreading false, malicious information with intent to
commit a terrorist act.
50.
The Government reports that Mr. Al Wadaei was arrested by the competent authority
with an arrest warrant, which was based on a legal provision that allows for his arrest, given
that the crime for which he was arrested is considered a major crime that requires arrest. The
Government notes that the law requires that the period of the accused’s arrest be calculated
from the prison term sentenced upon its execution, if he had spent a period of time detained
owing to the case in which the ruling was issued. His arrest was in accordance with the
provisions of the law in the general investigations prison in the city of Buraydah. He enjoys
his right to object to the legality of his arrest in accordance with the law.
51.
The Government states that, on the day of his arrest, Mr. Al Wadaei was informed of
the reasons for his detention and his legal rights, which he acknowledged in writing. These
include the right to legal representation during investigation and trial (art. 4 (1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure), the right to be informed of the charges against him and the right to
contact others regarding his arrest (arts. 36 (1), 101 (1) and 116 of the Code and art. 22 of its
executive regulations).
52.
Furthermore, the Government submits that the Embassy of Yemen in Riyadh was
notified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his arrest and the reasons for the detention at
the moment of his arrest, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
53.
After the investigation, the public prosecution referred Mr. Al Wadaei’s case to the
Specialized Criminal Court, in accordance with articles 15 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and 3 (b) and (c) of the Public Prosecution Law. He was formally charged on the
basis of sufficient evidence under article 126 of the Code, including his confessions, arrest
and search records, and technical reports. His appearance before the court was ordered
pursuant to article 135 of the Code.
54.
The Government affirms that Mr. Al Wadaei had the right to appoint a lawyer. He
requested a family member as his legal representative and asked for a State-funded lawyer of
his choice. Mr. Al Wadaei and his lawyer attended the trial sessions, which were held in the
presence of the public prosecutor.
55.
The Government submits that a preliminary ruling was issued against the
aforementioned, subject to appeal, which included sentencing him to a prison sentence of
19 years starting from the date of his arrest in this case, owing to his proven conviction of
committing a number of terrorist crimes, including his support for a terrorist entity, and
publishing false and malicious news and rumours with the intent to carry out a terrorist crime,
punishable under articles 34, 43 and 44 of the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing,
according to the evidence established by the Specialized Criminal Court and the discussions
and statements included in the trial deliberations.
56.
The Government adds that Mr. Al Wadaei has regular access to visits and phone calls.
having received 16 visits (most recently on 17 July 2024) and made 86 calls (the last on
18 August 2024). It also affirms that he has received necessary medical care since his arrest
and is in good health.
57.
The Government states that the public prosecution presented evidence proving that
Mr. Al Wadaei committed serious terrorist crimes. This included arrest and search reports,
technical findings, witness statements and his voluntary confessions before both the
investigating authority and the judiciary, in accordance with article 101 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
58.
The laws of Saudi Arabia ensure that any accused is tried before a competent,
independent court in a fair and public trial, with the right to legal representation and to appeal
the judgment. These laws are clear, precise, publicly available on government websites and
accessible to all. The country upholds its commitments under international human rights
agreements, and its legal framework is reviewed and updated regularly. Terrorist acts and
financing is defined clearly under the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing in line with
international standards and the country’s obligations.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
GE.25-09431
7
59.
Saudi Arabia affirms its commitment to human rights through the principle of legality:
punishments apply only on the basis of clear legal texts and only for acts committed
afterwards, with no penalty imposed without conviction under law or sharia. It also upholds
the rights to freedom of opinion, expression and thought, guaranteeing these rights unless
they infringe upon public order, society, individuals or core values.
60.
No one in Saudi Arabia is detained for exercising their rights and freedoms. All
citizens and residents, regardless of gender or status, enjoy equal rights and freedoms under
the law. No group has preferential treatment. Anyone whose rights are violated may file a
complaint through legal channels.
61.
The laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee respect for the principle of the accused’s
innocence, and no criminal penalty may be imposed on any person unless his conviction of
committing an act prohibited under sharia or law is proven after a trial conducted in
accordance with sharia requirements.
62.
The laws of Saudi Arabia ensure that all individuals – citizens and residents alike –
are equal before the law, entitled to equal protection and benefit without discrimination. They
guarantee fair procedures and trials before an independent, public judiciary rooted in sharia,
which mandates justice as the foundation of governance. Article 46 of the Basic Law of
Governance affirms the judiciary’s independence, with judges exercising authority solely
under sharia.
63.
The Government asserts that the Human Rights Commission of Saudi Arabia followed
up on Mr. Al Wadaei’s case, and it has been found that the procedures taken against him are
sound and that the laws and regulations in force relating to human rights are implemented,
and that none of these laws are violated. The Commission found that no violation of his rights
had been detected, based on its jurisdiction, which includes ensuring the availability of rights
and guarantees and the application of laws relating to human rights, and it is continuing to
follow up on his case.
64.
The Government affirms that arrests are not based solely on existing law, but also
require documented evidence of a criminal act, strict legal procedures by authorized
personnel and issuance by a competent authority. Detention occurs only in designated places
and for periods set by the authority, as stated in article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Arrests and detentions are supervised by the public prosecution, which is part of the judiciary.
65.
The Government contends that the measures taken against Mr. Al Wadaei are
consistent with international standards, including what is stated in articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles.
66.
The Government states that Mr. Al Wadaei was investigated while detained for major
terrorist crimes warranting detention. His detention period complied with the law, and he was
not denied the right to challenge its legality to seek release. He has been able to exercise this
right from the date of his arrest until now, given that contesting the legality of an arrest or
detention is guaranteed.
67.
Mr. Al Wadaei is detained in the general investigations prison in Buraydah, which is
a known and designated place of detention, and there are no secret places of detention in
Saudi Arabia.
68.
The Government notes that the law allows investigators to restrict an accused’s
contact with others temporarily, when necessary, without denying contact with family or
legal counsel. This aligns with international standards such as the Nelson Mandela Rules and
the Body of Principles. Saudi Arabia enforces strict limits on such restrictions and
criminalizes torture. Contact or visitation may be limited for up to 90 days if required by the
investigation, according to Saudi law.
69.
The Government states that the public prosecutor’s instructions limit isolation of the
accused to exceptional cases and the shortest time necessary on the basis of the crime’s
seriousness and investigation needs. Decisions are overseen by senior prosecutors, and the
detention period must comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused retains the
right to contact their lawyer. Prosecution offices supervise detention centres and must report
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
8
GE.25-09431
to the Attorney General for any detention exceeding 15 days from arrest, regardless of case
circumstances.
70.
All prisons and detention centers in Saudi Arabia are subject to supervision, inspection
and the taking of necessary measures in the event of any violation.
71.
The Government asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei was tried within a reasonable time. After
completing the investigation, the public prosecution found sufficient evidence, formally
charged him and referred his case to the Specialized Criminal Court under articles 15 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and 3 (b) and (c) of the Public Prosecution Law. The charges
included detailed descriptions of the crimes, applicable legal texts and supporting evidence
as required pursuant to article 126, and he was ordered to appear before the court under
article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
72.
The Government submits that Mr. Al Wadaei was convicted of committing terrorist
crimes, including his support for a terrorist entity, and publishing false and malicious news
and rumours with the intent to carry out a terrorist crime. It notes that combating terrorist
crimes and punishing their perpetrators is required under the law on crimes of terrorism and
its financing in order to preserve the security and safety of the internal community and the
international community, which is consistent with international standards and the United
Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, through preventing and combating terrorism.
73.
The Government notes that the source’s interpretation of the terrorist crimes
committed by the aforementioned as not constituting a call to violence are incorrect
interpretations on the basis of the source’s personal opinions and clearly contradict
international standards contained in international human rights law. The Government recalls
the Security Council resolutions related to combatting terrorism acts, which are consistent
with the measures taken by Saudi Arabia to combat them.
74.
The laws of Saudi Arabia prohibit the criminalization and punishment of any person
for his political opinions, and there is no person sentenced to imprisonment or other
punishment for discriminatory reasons in the country, whether for political or other opinions.
All persons are equal before the law and under it and have the right, without any
discrimination and on an equal footing, to the protection and benefit provided by the law, and
all citizens and residents are treated equally before the law.
75.
The Government asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei’s case was considered by an independent,
impartial and legally competent court, namely, the Specialized Criminal Court, in a fair and
public trial.
76.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia provides detainees with appropriate and free healthcare.
77.
Lastly, Saudi Arabia reminds the Working Group of the need to fully adhere to its
working methods and to the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders of the
Human Rights Council.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
78.
On 16 September 2024, the source provided further comments to the reply by the
Government in which it reiterated its earlier submission to the Working Group.
79.
The source contends that, although the Government states Mr. Al Wadaei was
convicted of terrorist crimes under the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing, including
supporting a terrorist entity and spreading false news with intent, it has provided no facts,
evidence or proof to support these claims.
80.
The source asserts that the publications of Mr. Al Wadaei presented as evidence by
the prosecution merely reflect his opinion and do not pose any genuine threat. Although the
State Party claims that his arrest and detention were for terrorism-related offences, it is
evident that Mr. Al Wadaei was convicted primarily as a reprisal for the criticism that he
directed at the authorities.
81.
Furthermore, the source argues that the Government’s assertion that Mr. Al Wadaei
was, at his request, granted legal counsel on the day of his arrest is inaccurate, given that he
did not meet his lawyer until his first hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court, on
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
GE.25-09431
9
12 November 2023. It was during that first hearing that he was astonished to learn about his
prosecution under the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing, contrary to the
Government’s assertion that he was informed of the charges on the day of his arrest.
82.
Owing to the authorities denying him legal counsel during detention, Mr. Al Wadaei
was unable to prepare his defence properly. Under those conditions, he was compelled to
“admit” and “confess” charges. The source argues that he acknowledged authoring social
media posts only but never admitted the criminal intent required under anti-terrorism laws.
83.
The source asserts that the Government failed to provide evidence of Mr. Al Wadaei’s
“terrorist intent”. His statements do not show the criminal intent required under the
anti-terrorism law. The source argues that this suggests that he has been presumed guilty and
is being punished by any means necessary.
84.
The source regrets that the Government did not provide details about Mr. Al Wadaei’s
initial hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court and repeats the claim of a violation of
his right to a prompt trial. The source also argues that the Government failed to clarify
whether alternative measures to prolonging his pretrial detention were considered, making
his detention legally unfounded.
2.
Discussion
85.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. It
notes that many of the submissions from the Government recited domestic laws in detail
without explaining in detail how they applied in the circumstances of the case. As the
Working Group has previously reiterated, even when the detention of a person is carried out
in conformity with national legislation, the Working Group must ensure that the detention is
also consistent with the relevant provisions of international law.12
86.
In determining whether a person’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.13
87.
The source has argued that the detention of Mr. Al Wadaei is arbitrary and falls under
categories I, II, III and V. The Working Group shall proceed to examine these in turn.
(a)
Category I
88.
The source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest on 19 October 2022 and subsequent
detention lack any legal basis or justification and are thus arbitrary under category I. The
source argues that Mr. Al Wadaei was not presented with an arrest warrant nor informed of
the reasons for his arrest at the moment of his arrest and was not informed promptly of the
charges against him.
89.
In its response, the Government explained that an arrest warrant was issued against
Mr. Al Wadaei by a competent and independent authority on the basis of the accusation of
committing serious terrorist crimes that warrant arrest and are punishable under the law on
crimes of terrorism and its financing, and that he was informed on the same day he was
arrested, on 19 October 2022, of the reasons for his arrest and the charges that he was facing.
90.
The Working Group notes that persons who are detained have the right to be informed
promptly of the charges against them. This 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 the deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient
that there is a law under which the arrest may be authorized. The authorities must invoke that
legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.14 This is done typically through an
12 Opinions No. 46/2011, No. 42/2012, No. 50/2017, No. 79/2017, No. 1/2018, No. 20/2018,
No. 37/2018, No. 50/2018 and No. 77/2020.
13 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
14 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
10
GE.25-09431
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.15
91.
The Working Group notes that the Government did not indicate in its response at what
point during the series of events the arrest warrant was shown to Mr. Al Wadaei at the time
of his arrest. 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
neither explains how the arrest was conducted nor who conducted it. This contrasts with the
more detailed account provided by the source, which submits that Mr. Al Wadaei was
arrested by security forces of Saudi Arabia in uniform while he was travelling from Sana’a
to Saudi Arabia through the Wadi’ah border crossing, and that he held a residence permit.
While the Government asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei 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 therefore not satisfied that Mr. Al Wadaei was
presented with an arrest warrant at the time of his arrest, irrespective of whether one was duly
issued. It finds that Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles.
92.
Furthermore, the Working Group observes the source’s allegation that Mr. Al Wadaei
was held incommunicado for three months, from his arrest to 19 January 2023, before being
allowed to contact his family. The Government notes that the law grants the investigating
authority the right to prevent the accused from contacting others for a specific period when
exceptional necessities in the investigation require this, without prejudice to the accused’s
right to contact their family or legal representative.
93.
The Working Group notes that prompt and regular access to family members, as well
as to independent medical personnel and lawyers, is an essential and necessary safeguard for
the prevention of torture and for protection against arbitrary detention and the infringement
of personal security. 16 Prohibitions against incommunicado detention are included in
principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles and rules 43 (3), 58 and 68 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules. Absent any substantiation from the Government regarding the period of this
incommunicado detention, or the reasons for it, the Working Group finds a violation of
principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles and rules 43 (3), 58 and 68 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules. For these reasons, the Working Group finds an additional violation of
Mr. Al Wadaei’s rights under article 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.17
94.
The source further submits that Mr. Al Wadaei was held in detention without being
charged or brought before a judicial authority for one year and four months. Reportedly, he
was brought before a court – the Specialized Criminal Court – for the first time only on
12 November 2023. It was also at this time when he first learned of the charges brought
against him, on the basis of the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing and the anti-
cybercrime law in connection to the posts that he had made on his social media account. The
Government refutes these allegations and asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei was informed on the
same day of his arrest of his legal rights and signed to acknowledge this, and well as the
charges against him, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and its executive
regulations, and he was ordered to appear before the court in accordance with article 135 of
the Code.
95.
The Working Group recalls that, according to 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, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before
a court is a self-standing human right, which is essential to preserve legality in a democratic
society.18
15 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.
16 Opinion No. 84/2020, para. 70.
17 See opinions No. 28/2016 and No. 79/2017.
18 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2–3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
GE.25-09431
11
96.
In its response, the Government did not provide specific dates during which Mr. Al
Wadaei was brought before the Court. The Working Group therefore considers that Mr. Al
Wadaei was denied the right to take proceedings before a court promptly 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.19 Furthermore, the Working
Group considers that judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal
liberty20 and is essential to ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Given that Mr. Al Wadaei
was unable to challenge the legality of his detention, his rights under articles 8 and 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights were also violated.
97.
For these reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Al Wadaei lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I.
(b)
Category II
98.
The source argues that Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of liberty results from the exercise
of his right to freedom of speech and expression, given that his charges related to some of his
posts on social media, in particular the post concerning the killing of a Saudi dissident
journalist in October 2018. The Government states that there is no one in Saudi Arabia
detained for exercising their rights and freedoms and that Mr. Al Wadaei was sentenced to
19 years’ imprisonment owing to his proven conviction of committing a number of terrorist
crimes, including his support for a terrorist entity, and publishing false and malicious news
and rumours with the intent to carry out a terrorist crime, punishable under articles 34, 43
and 44 of the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing.
99.
The Working Group notes that article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights protects the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers. This
right includes political discourse and commentary on public affairs. It protects the holding
and expression of opinions, including those that are critical of or not in line with government
policy.21 Weighing the submissions of both parties, the Working Group considers that Mr. Al
Wadaei’s conduct fell within the right to freedom of opinion and expression, protected under
article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that he was detained for
peacefully exercising those rights through his posts on social media.
100.
Furthermore, the Working Group observes that, according to the source, Mr. Al
Wadaei was prosecuted and sentenced on the basis of a law that does not meet the
requirements of lex certa, namely, the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing and the
anti-cybercrime law. The source asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei’s conviction is based on
provisions of the law on crimes of terrorism and its financing, which contains a definition of
a “terrorist crime” in article 1 that is, according to several special procedure mandate holders,
including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,22 and the Committee against Torture,23
broad and vague, thereby enabling the criminalization of a wide spectrum of acts of peaceful
expression and opinion.
101.
In response, the Government rejects the source’s claims and asserts that all laws in
Saudi Arabia are formulated with sufficient precision and clarity, that the law on crimes of
terrorism and its financing contains clear definitions of the crime of terrorism and the crime
of financing terrorism in a manner consistent with international rules and the Government’s
international obligations, and that the principle of legal certainty is one of the basic standards.
102.
The Working Group recalls that it has previously stated that vaguely and broadly
worded provisions, such as the anti-cybercrime law and the law on crimes of terrorism and
its financing, which cannot qualify as lex certa, violate the principle of legality in
19 Opinion No. 33/2020, para. 56.
20 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
21 Opinions No. 79/2017, para. 55; and No. 8/2019, para. 55.
22 See communication SAU 12/2020, p. 6.
23 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 16.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
12
GE.25-09431
article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.24 The Working Group considers
that charges and convictions under the provisions of these laws, which allow for the
criminalization of peaceful expression, enable arbitrary interpretation and make it difficult
for citizens to determine how to act in order to comply with the law and cannot be regarded
as consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 25 The Working Group
reiterates these findings in relation to the application of these provisions regarding Mr. Al
Wadaei’s case and therefore finds a violation of article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
103.
For all the above, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Al Wadaei’s deprivation of
liberty is arbitrary under category II, given that it resulted from his exercise of the rights and
freedoms guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(c)
Category III
104.
Given the findings that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al Wadaei is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. However,
because the 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.
105.
The source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei was denied access to legal counsel. According
to the source, although a State-appointed lawyer was assigned to Mr. Al Wadaei in May 2023,
he was able to meet his lawyer only at his first hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court,
on 12 November 2023. The Government states that, on the day of his arrest, Mr. Al Wadaei
was informed of his legal rights, including the right to seek the assistance of a representative
or lawyer, and that he sought the assistance of his family member to be his legal
representative and requested the appointment of a lawyer of his choice at the expense of the
State. The Government further asserts that the trial sessions continued in the presence of
Mr. Al Wadaei, his lawyer and the public prosecutor.
106.
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.26 The Working Group notes that the Government does not specify when Mr. Al
Wadaei was able to meet with his lawyer. Moreover, the Working Group has already
established that Mr. Al Wadaei was held incommunicado for the first three months after his
arrest. Absent any substantiated information from the Government to the contrary, the
Working Group considers that the Government failed to respect Mr. Al Wadaei’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. Therefore, the Working Group finds a violation 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 Nelson 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.
107.
Furthermore, the source claims that Mr. Al Wadaei’s lack of regular access to his
lawyer had a detrimental impact on his ability to prepare and present a defence. The Working
Group therefore finds that Mr. Al Wadaei’s right to equality of arms before the courts, to
adequate time to prepare a defence and to a fair hearing under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the
Universal Declaration were violated.
108.
The Working Group also takes note of the source’s allegation that Mr. Al Wadaei was
transferred to a detention facility in Najran operated by the State security service and
24 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.
25 See opinions No. 46/2011 and No. 45/2019; and A/HRC/41/7, paras. 38.73 and 38.171.
26 A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9 and guideline 8; CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, paras. 14 and 15; and opinion
No. 86/2020, para. 78.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
GE.25-09431
13
controlled by the Ministry of Interior, where he was held for a period of two weeks and
interrogated without access to a lawyer or contact with his family. The Government, in its
response, asserts that Mr. Al Wadaei confessed to the charges attributed to him before the
judiciary. In its further comments, the source contends that, in reality, Mr. Al Wadaei
acknowledged only being the author of the publications shared on his personal social media
account and that he never admitted to having any criminal intent under the anti-terrorism
legislation. In this regard, as the Working Group has stated before, confessions made in the
absence of legal representation are not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.27
109.
With regard to the source’s argument that Mr. Al Wadaei was tried before the
Specialized Criminal Court, it recalls that the Committee against Torture expressed its
concerns about that Court’s insufficient independence from the Ministry of Interior. 28
According to the source, its judges are appointed by the Supreme Judicial Council and that
some are appointed directly by the King. Because of this external influence, the source
argues, this Court cannot be considered an impartial or independent body. The Government
has not refuted these allegations for the specific case and has claimed only that the Court is
independent, impartial and legally competent.
110.
Noting the source’s submission that the Specialized Criminal Court has suffered from
undue influence from the executive branch and the argument regarding the lack of
independence relating to judges’ appointments, the Working Group reiterates its previous
findings that the Court cannot be considered an independent and impartial tribunal, 29 a
concern shared by the Committee against Torture.30 The Working Group further notes the
assessment of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism regarding the lack of independence of the
Court.31 Similarly, the Committee has noted that the Court has repeatedly refused to act on
claims made by defendants facing terrorism charges who allege that they were subjected to
torture or ill-treatment during interrogation.32
111.
The Working Group concludes that the trial of Mr. Al Wadaei before the Specialized
Criminal Court is in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence
of judges and lawyers for appropriate action.
112.
Lastly, the Working Group observes that, according to the source, Mr. Al Wadaei was
not tried without undue delay, given that more than one year elapsed between his arrest in
October 2022 and his trial in November 2023. The Government did not provide any dates
with regard to when Mr. Al Wadaei’s trial began. The reasonableness of any delay in bringing
a case to trial must be assessed in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the
complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and the manner in which the matter was
dealt with by the authorities. Absent any justification from the Government, the Working
Group considers that the delay in bringing Mr. Al Wadaei to trial was unacceptably long, in
violation of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle
38 of the Body of Principles. As noted above, Mr. Al Wadaei should never have been detained
for the peaceful exercise of his rights under international human rights law, and the delay in
trying him was unacceptable.
113.
Given the above considerations, the Working Group concludes that the violations of
Mr. Al Wadaei’s right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give his
deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
27 A/HRC/45/16, para. 53. See also opinions No. 73/2019, para. 91; No. 59/2019, para. 70; No. 14/2019,
para. 71; No. 1/2014, para. 22; and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e).
28 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 17.
29 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 74; No. 26/2019, para. 102; No. 56/2019, para. 86; and No. 71/2019,
para. 44.
30 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 17.
31 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 47.
32 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
14
GE.25-09431
(d)
Category V
114.
The source submits that Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest, prosecution and treatment are the
direct result of his political opinion. According to the source, he was arrested and detained
for his posts on his social media account and sentenced to a lengthy prison term, on the basis
solely of his social media posts, on terrorism charges, even though he had no connection to
terrorism. The Government states that Mr. Al Wadaei was sentenced to 19 years in prison for
having committed a number of terrorist crimes, including his support for a terrorist entity,
and publishing false and malicious news and rumours with the intent to carry out a terrorist
crime, punishable under articles 34, 43 and 44 of the law on crimes of terrorism and its
financing, according to the evidence established by the Specialized Criminal Court and the
discussions and statements included in the trial. Moreover, the Government states that the
laws of Saudi Arabia prohibit the criminalization and punishment of any person for his
political opinions, and there is no person sentenced to imprisonment or other punishment for
their political opinions in Saudi Arabia.
115.
The source further contends that the publications of Mr. Al Wadaei that were
presented as evidence by the prosecution merely reflect his opinion and do not pose any
genuine threat. Although the Government in its response claims that his arrest and detention
were for terrorism-related charges, the source claims that it is evident that he was convicted
primarily as a reprisal for his criticism of the authorities.
116.
In the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group established that
Mr. Al Wadaei’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his fundamental rights.
When detention has resulted from the active exercise of civil and political rights, as is the
case here, there is a strong presumption that detention also constitutes a violation of
international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other views.33
117.
Having reviewed the submissions of the source and the Government, the Working
Group finds credible the source’s submission that Mr. Al Wadaei’s arrest, conviction and
lengthy sentence are to silence and punish him for sharing his views online peacefully, an
activity that is expressly protected under international law.
118.
The Working Group therefore finds that Mr. Al Wadaei was deprived of his liberty
on discriminatory grounds because of his political opinion. His detention violates articles 2
and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is arbitrary under category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
119.
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.34 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
and to prevent and punish them if they are committed.
120.
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.
33 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; and No. 59/2019, para. 79.
34 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/2025/31
GE.25-09431
15
3.
Disposition
121.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mohammed Ali Hussein Al Wadaei, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
122.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Al Wadaei without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The Working Group encourages the Government to ratify the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
123.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al Wadaei immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
124.
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
Wadaei and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their
rights.
125.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
126.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
127.
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 Wadaei has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al Wadaei;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Al
Wadaei’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.
128.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties that 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.
129.
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.
130.
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
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/31
16
GE.25-09431
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 that they have taken.35
[Adopted on 9 April 2025]
35 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.