Opinion; Subjects: YEMEN, 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.25-08318 (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. 37/2025 concerning Bassam Shukri Ahmed Mutahar
Al Jalladi (Yemen and 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 22 July 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia and the Government of Yemen a
communication concerning Bassam Shukri Ahmed Mutahar Al Jalladi. The Government of
Saudi Arabia replied to the communication on 11 September 2024. The Government of
Yemen has not replied. Yemen is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, while Saudi Arabia is not.
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
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
General Assembly
Distr.: General
11 June 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
2
GE.25-08318
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Bassam Shukri Ahmed Mutahar Al Jalladi, born on 26 September 1990, is a Yemeni
national. His usual place of residence is Khanfar District, Yemen.
(i)
Arrest and detention
5.
According to the source, on 27 May 2019, Mr. Al Jalladi was arrested by Yemeni
military officers in uniform while applying to join the military police at its camp in Al-Mahra,
in the east of Yemen. The Yemeni military officers did not show him an arrest warrant or
provide him with the reasons for his arrest.
6.
The source notes that the military forces that arrested Mr. Al Jalladi are supervised
and controlled by a general affiliated with the internationally recognized Government of
Yemen and its Ministry of Defence. The Chairman of the Presidential Leadership Council
appointed this general as Commander of the Al-Ghaydah Military Axis, and he was later
promoted to the rank of major general in Al-Mahra Governorate.
7.
Following his arrest, Mr. Al Jalladi was immediately transferred to a military prison
located in Al-Mahra, where he was detained before being rendered to Saudi Arabia at the
beginning of June 2019.
8.
Reportedly, Mr. Al Jalladi’s rendition to Saudi Arabia in June 2019 was issued by the
military police of Al-Mahra Governorate affiliated with the Yemeni Ministry of Defence.
The source submits that his rendition to Saudi Arabia took place without any legal procedure,
notice to his family or judicial review and without being able to consult a lawyer.
9.
According to the source, a member of Mr. Al Jalladi’s family travelled to the military
police camp in Al-Mahra Governorate to meet the general – the commander of the camp –
but he was not allowed to enter, and the general refused to listen to him.
10.
Once in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al Jalladi was taken to Asir Prison, Abha, in the south-west
of the country.
11.
The source reports that from his arrest until 18 September 2019, a period of
approximately four months, Mr. Al Jalladi was held incommunicado, deprived of any contact
with the outside world. Furthermore, he was subjected to enforced disappearance from the
time of his rendition to Saudi Arabia in June 2019 until he was allowed to contact his family
for the first time on 18 September 2019.
12.
On 18 September 2019, Mr. Al Jalladi was permitted to make a brief telephone call to
his family for the first time, while held in Asir Prison, Abha. From then, he was permitted
one brief weekly call until October 2022, when the calls were abruptly stopped. Thereafter,
he was reportedly held incommunicado, with his whereabouts and condition unclear.
13.
In March 2022, he was transferred to Dhahban Central Prison, in Jeddah, where he is
believed to currently be detained.
14.
On 5 June 2022, Mr. Al Jalladi was first brought before a judge, during his first
hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court. This was the first time that he had been able
to meet with his State-appointed lawyer since his arrest.
15.
The source submits that he had previously been arrested in Yemen in March 2016 by
the Security Belt Forces – acting for a third State – on grounds of affiliation with a terrorist
organization. He was reportedly tortured. In February 2019, he was released following a
decision not to prosecute.
16.
Mr. Al Jalladi was recently sentenced to 36 years’ imprisonment by the Specialized
Criminal Court in Saudi Arabia for the same offences that had led to non-prosecution in 2019
in Yemen.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
3
(ii)
Legal analysis
17.
The source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest and detention are arbitrary under
categories I and III.
a.
Category I
Extrajudicial rendition and State responsibility of Yemen
18.
The source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest, extrajudicial rendition and
incommunicado detention occurred outside any legal framework and must be attributed to
both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, making his continued detention without legal basis.
19.
It argues that Mr. Al Jalladi had no opportunity to challenge the legality of his
rendition to Saudi Arabia. His arrest was not subject to judicial review in Yemen and occurred
without legal procedures, under an agreement between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
20.
Reportedly, Mr. Al Jalladi had previously been arrested and prosecuted by Yemeni
authorities in March 2016 for alleged affiliation with a terrorist group, but he had been
released in February 2019 following a decision not to prosecute. Despite that, he was arrested
again in Yemen on 27 May 2019 and transferred to Saudi Arabia in June 2019 based on the
same facts, despite the risk of arbitrary detention.
21.
Given the charges against Mr. Al Jalladi and the absolute principle of non-refoulment,
Yemeni authorities knew that his transfer to Saudi Arabia risked arbitrary detention and
torture, as documented in other similar cases.
22.
The source asserts that Mr. Al Jalladi’s rendition to Saudi Arabia violates the principle
of non-refoulment under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Arbitrariness of deprivation of liberty in Saudi Arabia
23.
The source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi was arrested without an arrest warrant and was
not informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him. He was only notified of
the official charges several months after his arrest, on 5 June 2022, during his first hearing
before the Specialized Criminal Court, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
24.
He was prosecuted and sentenced under a law that does not meet the lex certa
requirement and thus makes it impossible to invoke a legal basis to justify his detention. His
conviction relies on the Anti-Terrorism Law, article 1 of which defines “terrorist crime” in a
broad and vague manner, enabling the criminalization of a wide spectrum of acts of peaceful
expression and opinion, according to human rights mechanisms.2
25.
Furthermore, Mr. Al Jalladi was detained incommunicado for approximately four
months – from his arrest on 27 May 2019 until 18 September 2019 – placing him outside
legal protection and safeguards. Such deprivation of liberty lacks any valid legal basis and is
inherently arbitrary, in violation of articles 3, 6 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.3
26.
Throughout his incommunicado detention, he was unable to challenge the lawfulness
of his detention before a court. He was only brought before a judge on 5 June 2022, denying
him prompt judicial review and the right to challenge his detention without delay.
27.
The source argues that Mr. Al Jalladi was denied legal assistance from the moment of
his arrest, impairing his ability to challenge his detention, in violation of articles 8 and 10 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 16; and see communication SAU 12/2020, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25726,
p. 6.
3 A/HRC/16/47, p. 2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
4
GE.25-08318
b.
Category III
28.
The source asserts that the failure to comply with international standards of fair trial
renders Mr. Al Jalladi’s detention arbitrary under category III.
29.
Reportedly, he was assigned a lawyer whom he was only able to meet at his first
hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court on 5 June 2022.
30.
The source argues that the absence of legal counsel immediately after Mr. Al Jalladi’s
arrest prevented him from preparing an adequate defence, including accessing his criminal
files.4 These violations undermined his ability to defend himself in judicial proceedings,
contrary to 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 under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
31.
Furthermore, he was detained without charges from the times of his arrest on 27 May
2019 until his trial began in 2022. It was only during his first hearing, on 5 June 2022, that
he was informed of the official charges against him and the reasons for his detention.
Consequently, he was deprived of his right to be tried within a reasonable time, contrary to
principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
32.
The source argues that prosecuting Mr. Al Jalladi for acts he had previously been
prosecuted for and then released, without new evidence, presumes his guilt, showing the
Saudi authorities’ intent to punish him regardless of substantial evidence, in violation of his
right to be presumed innocent under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and principle 36 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
33.
The source recalls the non bis in idem principle, which prohibits retrial for acts already
judged by a final decision. Despite this, after his transfer to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al Jalladi was
reportedly prosecuted again for the same facts previously dismissed in Yemen, without new
evidence, and sentenced to 36 years for alleged terrorist affiliation.
34.
The source notes that judges of the Specialized Criminal Court are appointed by the
Supreme Judicial Council, which, under the 2007 Law of Judiciary, includes a Chair and
10 members – seven appointed directly by the King, along with the Director of the Public
Prosecution Service. The source argues that the influence of the King and the Public
Prosecutor over the Council undermines the Court’s impartiality and independence, 5
violating the presumption of innocence and the right to defence under articles 10 and 11 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(b)
Responses from the Governments
35.
On 22 July 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Yemen under its regular communication procedure.
The Working Group requested the Governments to provide detailed information by
20 September 2024 about the current situation of Mr. Al Jalladi and to clarify the legal
provisions justifying his arrest and his continued detention. Moreover, the Working Group
called upon the Governments to ensure the physical and mental integrity of Mr. Al Jalladi.
36.
The Government of Yemen did not provide a response. The Government of Saudi
Arabia submitted its response on 11 September 2024.
37.
In its response, the Government of Saudi Arabia affirms its cooperation with
United Nations human rights mechanisms, stating that it responds to their enquiries and
requests, fulfils its international obligations arising from its accession to human rights
agreements and ensures that its procedures align with international human rights law and
standards, clarifying all relevant facts.
4 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 (A/HRC/30/37), principle 9, para. 12.
5 Opinion No. 22/2019, para. 74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
5
38.
The Government of Saudi Arabia submits that the information by the source contains
unfounded allegations lacking evidence. Saudi Arabia investigates claims and clarifies facts
as part of its cooperation with international human rights mechanisms. The Government
rejects the claim that Mr. Al Jalladi’s case is arbitrary.
39.
Concerning Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest, investigation and trial, the Government asserts that
he was arrested on 23 May 2019 under an arrest warrant issued by the competent authority,
after evidence had become available proving that he had committed terrorist crimes
punishable under the Counter-terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, including:
(a)
Joining Al-Qaida and participating in its activities;
(b)
Assisting Al-Qaida and transporting its members;
(c)
Transporting weapons and ammunition for Al-Qaida to commit terrorist
crimes;
(d)
Financing terrorism by receiving funds from Al-Qaida for committing terrorist
crimes.
40.
The Government notes that the competent authority issued an arrest warrant against
Mr. Al Jalladi, which was founded on a legal basis permitting his arrest, as the alleged crimes
are considered major and require arrest. Mr. Al Jalladi was lawfully detained by the
competent authority in the General Investigation Prison in Buraidah, with the right to object
to the legality of his detention under the law.
41.
The Government contends that Mr. Al Jalladi was immediately informed, on the date
of his arrest, of the reasons for his arrest, and his legal rights, including the right to legal
counsel during investigation and trial, in accordance with article 4 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. He acknowledged this with his signature. He was also informed of the charges
and of his right to contact anyone necessary regarding his detention, in accordance with
articles 36 (1), 101 (1) and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 22 of its
executive regulations.
42.
The Government submits that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Embassy
of Yemen in Riyadh of Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest and detention and the reasons for it, in line
with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
43.
The Government asserts that Saudi Arabia does not issue arrest or detention orders
solely on the basis of legislation, but only when supported by documented evidence of a
punishable criminal act. Such orders are issued by a competent authority, in strict compliance
with the law, by authorized personnel. Detention or imprisonment is carried out only in
designated facilities and for the period set by the competent authority, in accordance with
article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
44.
Arrest and detention orders are overseen by the Public Prosecution, part of the judicial
authority, and by the competent court. The accused may seek redress through these channels
if their rights are violated. The actions taken against Mr. Al Jalladi comply with international
human rights standards, including articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and principles 2, 4, and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
45.
After the investigations concluded, the Public Prosecution referred Mr. Al Jalladi’s
case to the Specialized Criminal Court, in accordance with article 15 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and article 3 (b) and (c) of the Public Prosecution Law. He was then charged based
on sufficient evidence, including his confession before the judiciary, arrest and search
records, and technical reports, as per article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was
then summoned to appear before the Court under article 135 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
46.
The Government notes that Mr. Al Jalladi was informed of his right to appoint a
lawyer or agent, and that if he lacked the financial means, he could request a lawyer at the
State’s expense, in accordance with article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did,
in fact, seek legal assistance from a lawyer of his choice, funded by the State.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
6
GE.25-08318
47.
The trial sessions proceeded in the presence of Mr. Al Jalladi, his legal representative
and the Public Prosecutor, in accordance with article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
48.
The Government submits that a preliminary, appealable ruling sentenced
Mr. Al Jalladi to prison after he was found guilty of multiple terrorist crimes under the
Counter-terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act. His conviction was based on evidence
and statements presented during the trial.
49.
The Government submits that the court verified all evidence against Mr. Al Jalladi,
fully respecting the international obligations of Saudi Arabia, and evaluated the facts and
charges brought against him.
50.
The Government notes that Mr. Al Jalladi was granted the right to appeal within
30 days of receiving the ruling, in accordance with article 192 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This article allows the convicted person, the Public Prosecutor and the private
claimant to request an appeal or review within the prescribed period, and requires the court
to inform them of this upon pronouncing the judgment.
51.
The judgment was appealed both by the Public Prosecutor and by Mr. Al Jalladi
through his legal representative. The case was submitted to the Specialized Criminal Court
of Appeal, which held several sessions in their presence.
52.
The Government states that Mr. Al Jalladi was sentenced to 36 years in prison, starting
from the date of his arrest, for committing terrorist crimes. These included joining and
supporting Al-Qaida, transporting its members, weapons and ammunition, and financing
terrorism by receiving funds from the group. The sentence was issued under articles 33, 38,
39, 47 and 55 of the Counter-terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act.
53.
The Government contends that no objection was submitted to the Supreme Court
within the legal time frame, completing the judicial review process. The ruling is now final
and enforceable, and Mr. Al Jalladi is currently serving his sentence.
54.
Since his arrest, Mr. Al Jalladi has received necessary medical care and enjoys good
health.
55.
The Government affirms that every detainee has the right to challenge the legality of
arrest or detention under article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article requires
delivery of the original detention order to the Director of Detention, with a signed
acknowledgment. Detainees may appeal arrest or detention extensions to the head of the
investigator’s department, its branch head or the Public Prosecutor, who must make a
decision within five days. The Public Prosecution, an independent judicial body, operates
without external interference, ensuring protection of detainees’ rights and personal freedom.
56.
The Public Prosecution presented evidence proving Mr. Al Jalladi’s involvement in
serious terrorist crimes, which included arrest and search records, technical reports, witness
statements, and his voluntary confession before both the investigating authority and the
judiciary, in accordance with article 101 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
57.
The Government submits that the laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee every accused
person a fair and public trial before a competent, independent court, with the right to legal
representation, and self-defence, and to appeal the ruling before higher courts.
58.
The Government affirms that the laws of Saudi Arabia are clear, precise and publicly
accessible, allowing individuals to understand and regulate their behaviour accordingly.
Saudi Arabia is committed to the human rights treaties it has joined, and its laws are regularly
reviewed and updated in line with local and international developments. The Counter-
terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act clearly defines terrorism and its financing in line
with international standards, outlining related procedures such as arrest, detention, legal
representation and trial. It also specifies penalties and provides for the establishment of
specialized centres for education, reform and rehabilitation to support reintegration. This
reflects the principle of legal certainty, a core element of the country’s criminal legislation.
59.
The Government submits that the Criminal Code clearly defines criminal acts and
their penalties to ensure public understanding and prevent unintentional violations. No one
may be punished for an act not explicitly prohibited by law. This clarity upholds legal
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
7
certainty, protects the rights of the accused and prevents unjust application of the law, which
reflects the commitment of Saudi Arabia to criminal justice and individual rights.
60.
The principles of necessity and proportionality guide the legislation of Saudi Arabia,
ensuring that punishments align with the nature of the crime and are necessary to protect
human rights, public security and societal stability.
61.
Saudi Arabia affirms its commitment to human rights through the principle of legality,
under which punishment is personal and applied only for acts defined by law after the
relevant legal text has taken effect.
62.
The laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee the presumption of innocence, prohibiting
criminal penalties without a conviction for acts prohibited by sharia or law, following a
sharia-compliant trial. Legal safeguards ensure due process, protect the rights of the accused,
and maintain the presumption of innocence until a final judgment is issued.
63.
The Government notes that the laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee equality before the
law for all persons, without discrimination. Citizens and residents have equal access to legal
protection and the right to seek justice through national courts. Article 47 of the Basic Law
of Governance affirms that “the right to litigation is guaranteed equally”.
64.
The laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee every person a fair trial before an independent
and public judiciary grounded in Islamic law, which ensures justice and judicial
independence. Article 46 of the Basic Law of Governance states that the judiciary is
independent and that judges’ authority is limited to Islamic law. Article 1 of the Judicial Law
affirms judges’ independence and prohibits interference. Article 48 mandates courts to apply
Islamic law based on the Qur’an, Sunna, and regulations consistent with them, while article
49 grants courts jurisdiction over all crimes and disputes except those that come under the
Board of Grievances.
65.
The Human Rights Commission of Saudi Arabia reviewed Mr. Al Jalladi’s case and
found the procedures lawful and in compliance with human rights regulations. It reported no
rights violations and confirmed adherence to the applicable laws. The Commission continues
to monitor the situation of Mr. Al Jalladi as part of its mandate to ensure that rights and legal
guarantees are upheld.
66.
The Public Prosecution is an independent body, directly linked to the King, and part
of the judiciary. The law on the Public Prosecution guarantees it full independence, and no
one may interfere in its work.
67.
The Government affirms the separation of powers, with the judiciary and the
executive having distinct roles. The judiciary operates with full independence, as previously
noted.
68.
The Government refutes the source’s claims that Mr. Al Jalladi was detained
incommunicado for four months or denied legal rights. It affirms that all procedures complied
with international standards and the laws of Saudi Arabia, which prohibit arrest, detention or
imprisonment without legal authority and require detention only in designated places for
specified periods. This underscores the country’s respect for individual freedom and security.
69.
The Government asserts that Mr. Al Jalladi was not denied the right to challenge his
detention and could seek release if the detention was unlawful. This right, available from the
arrest date onwards, reflects the legislature’s commitment to protecting detainees’ rights.
70.
The Government reports that Mr. Al Jalladi is detained in the General Investigation
Prison in Buraidah, which is a known and designated detention place. There are no secret
detention places in Saudi Arabia. Since his arrest, he has had the right to visitation and
communication and to notify others of his arrest.
71.
Mr. Al Jalladi is entitled to legal assistance, and has engaged two legal representatives,
including one provided at the State’s expense.
72.
The Government wishes to clarify that investigating authorities may restrict the
accused’s contact for a limited time when necessary. Saudi laws prohibit arrest, detention or
imprisonment except by law and competent authority order, and only in designated places
for specified periods. This reflects the country’s respect for individual freedom and security.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
8
GE.25-08318
73.
The Government affirms that limiting the accused’s communication during
investigation, while preserving contact with family or legal counsel, is a legal procedure
aligned with international standards such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Saudi Arabia
strictly prohibits torture, and its anti-terrorism law allows contact restrictions only in
exceptional cases, not exceeding 90 days. Detainees can file complaints, which must be
promptly addressed by the prison authorities and the Public Prosecution, ensuring oversight
and protection of detainees’ rights. The prison or detention administration must designate an
independent office for the competent public prosecutor to follow up on the conditions of
prisoners or detainees.
74.
The Government notes that the Public Prosecutor’s instructions stress that isolation of
accused persons should be used only in exceptional cases, for the shortest period, based on
the seriousness of the crime and investigative needs. Such measures require approval by the
regional prosecution head or the Public Prosecutor and must not exceed the legally prescribed
period. The right of the accused to contact legal counsel remains protected. Prosecution
offices are tasked with monitoring detention centres and must seek the Attorney General’s
approval for any detention exceeding 15 days.
75.
All prisons and detention centres in the Saudi Arabia are subject to supervision and
inspection, with corrective measures taken for any violations. Members of the Public
Prosecution also supervise criminal investigation officers, as provided under article 25 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
76.
To strengthen oversight and protect detainees’ rights, the Human Rights Commission
is authorized under articles 6 (5) and 7 of its statute to visit prisons at any time without prior
approval, to investigate complaints and to take legal action. The National Society for Human
Rights, a civil society organization, also conducts visits and receives complaints. Both bodies,
along with the Public Prosecution, maintain offices in many prisons to monitor conditions
and address concerns. Saudi laws ensure justice for all, regardless of religion, race, gender or
nationality, and provide multiple redress mechanisms through judicial and human rights
institutions.
77.
The Government affirms that the measures in Mr. Al Jalladi’s case align with
international human rights standards, including articles 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principles 17, 18 and 38 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and principle
9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the
Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court. It contends
that no violation falling under category I has occurred.
78.
The Government rejects the source’s allegations that Mr. Al Jalladi is being retried
for the same facts that led to the Yemeni authorities’ decision not to prosecute him, without
new evidence. The Government asserts that he was not tried in Saudi Arabia for crimes for
which a judgment had been issued previously, as the principle that a person may not be tried
twice for an act is one of the basic legal principles. The principle of ne bis in idem is upheld
under article 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 76 (1) of the Code of Sharia
Procedure, requiring courts to dismiss cases already ruled upon. This aligns with article 14 (7)
of the Covenant.
79.
The Counter-terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act aims to combat terrorist crimes
and protect national and global security, in line with international standards and the United
Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The Government recalls relevant Security
Council resolutions, namely Security Council resolution 1566 (2004) and Security Council
resolution 1377 (2001), as well as General Assembly resolution 60/288.
80.
The Government further contends that Mr. Al Jalladi was tried fairly and publicly by
an independent and impartial court – the Specialized Criminal Court, established under article
6 of the Judicial Law by the Supreme Council. This Court follows the same procedures as
other criminal courts and is part of the country’s judicial system. Judges are appointed by
royal order upon the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council, in accordance with
article 47 of the Judicial Law.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
9
81.
The Government affirms that detainees and prisoners receive free, comprehensive
medical care under Saudi laws. Upon entry, all undergo examinations and laboratory tests,
and a detailed medical report is prepared. Medical privacy is protected, and inmates are
referred to external hospitals when needed. Medications are provided, monitored by
specialists to ensure proper intake, and communication with families is encouraged to support
inmates’ well-being.
82.
The Government submits that the prison where Mr. Al Jalladi is detained has a fully
equipped hospital with specialized medical staff and clinics covering internal medicine,
urology, dermatology, dentistry, cardiology, neurology, X-rays, CT scans, MRI scans, and
more. Some medical cases are followed up on there and other surgery is performed in
government hospitals outside the prison.
83.
The Government affirms that the allegations presented to the Working Group are
unfounded, and that the procedures in Mr. Al Jalladi’s case comply with international human
rights standards, the country’s legal obligations, and relevant human rights agreements.
84.
In conclusion, the Government affirms its commitment to cooperating with
international human rights mechanisms by responding to letters, appeals and reports and
clarifying all relevant facts.
85.
The Government reminds the Working Group to fully adhere to its methods of work
and to the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights
Council, particularly articles 6 (b) and (c), 9 (a) and (d), 59 (h) and 12 (a).
(c)
Further comments from the source
86.
In its further comments, the source reiterated its submissions and provided further
information to rebut the Government’s submissions.
87.
The source claims that, contrary to the Government’s allegations, Mr. Al Jalladi was
never allowed to inform his family of his arrest and was cut off from all contact with the
outside world until 18 September 2019, when he was briefly allowed to call them from Asir
Prison. The anti-terrorism law allows 90 days of detention without family or legal contact, a
practice criticized by the Committee against Torture for lacking safeguards.6
88.
The source challenges the Government’s claim that every detainee can object to their
detention, arguing that Mr. Al Jalladi could not in practice challenge the lawfulness of his
detention because he was detained incommunicado and denied access to a lawyer. He was
brought before a judicial authority only on 5 June 2022, nearly two years after his arrest.
89.
The source disputes the Government’s claim that Mr. Al Jalladi was allowed to
appoint a lawyer, asserting he was denied legal counsel until his first hearing before the
Specialized Criminal Court on 5 June 2022. Only then did he learn that he was being
prosecuted under the anti-terrorism law, contrary to the Government’s claim that he was
informed upon arrest. This denial left him vulnerable, unable to defend himself or to
challenge his detention. The lack of counsel also impaired his defence, leading to a coerced
confession – which was also invalid, as Yemen had previously declined to prosecute the same
conduct.
90.
Moreover, the source notes that Mr. Al Jalladi was previously arrested in Yemen on
the same charges but was released after an investigation found no wrongdoing. His alleged
confession lacks evidentiary value, especially given the decision by Yemen not to prosecute.
The Government offers no supporting evidence or detail for its terrorism claims and has
withheld information on his initial hearing. The source thus maintains that Mr. Al Jalladi’s
right to a prompt, fair trial was violated. The source submits that even though the Government
claims that Mr. Al Jalladi was not tried in Saudi Arabia for crimes for which a judgment had
previously been issued, the scope of the charges against him, namely his alleged affiliation
with a terrorist group, confirms that he is being prosecuted on the basis of these same facts.
91.
The source contends that, contrary to the Government’s claim, the Specialized
Criminal Court that sentenced Mr. Al Jalladi to 36 years’ imprisonment is a court of exception
6 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, paras. 16 and 18 (b).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
10
GE.25-08318
for terrorism cases, composed of judges appointed by the Ministry of the Interior and lacking
independence.
92.
The Court’s lack of impartiality is further illustrated by the Government’s assertion
that the parties did not submit a memorandum of objection to the appeal before the Supreme
Court, so the ruling is final. While the Government suggests that this shows Mr. Al Jalladi’s
free choice, it in fact highlights the lack of effective judicial remedies in the country.
93.
Indeed, Mr. Al Jalladi could not file an appeal because immediately after being
sentenced, he was transferred to prison without access to a lawyer or the chance to appeal the
decision.
94.
Lastly, the source affirms its strict commitment to objectivity, impartiality and
evidence-based submissions.
2.
Discussion
95.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
96.
In determining whether Mr. Al Jalladi’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.7
97.
As a preliminary matter, the Working Group notes that Mr. Al Jalladi was arrested
and deprived of his liberty in Yemen by military forces under the supervision and control of
a general who is directly affiliated to the internationally recognized Government of Yemen
and its Ministry of Defence. According to the source, this general was appointed Commander
of the Al-Ghaydah Military Axis and was subsequently promoted to the rank of major general
in the Al-Mahra Governorate by the Chairman of the Presidential Leadership Council of the
Government of Yemen. The Government of Yemen has chosen not to refute these allegations.
98.
In the absence of a response from the Government of Yemen, the Working Group
considers that the authorities that conducted Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest are under the direct control
and command of the Government.
(a)
Category I
(i)
Allegations against Yemen
99.
In relation to Yemen, the Working Group will consider whether there have been
violations under category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without legal basis.
100.
At the outset, the Working Group notes that there is a discrepancy between the
allegations of the source and the allegations of the Government. While the source argues that
Mr. Al Jalladi was arrested on 27 May 2019 in Yemen, the Government of Saudi Arabia
submits that he was arrested on 23 May 2019. It is not clear from the response from the
Government of Saudi Arabia whether Mr. Al Jalladi was arrested in Yemen or Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, the Government of Saudi Arabia did not make any reference to the rendition of
Mr. Jalladi by the authorities of Yemen. The Government of Yemen has chosen not to contest
the source’s allegations.
101.
The Working Group recalls that the commencement of a period of detention is a
factual issue, based on the issue of when the person was no longer at liberty to leave a location
whether due to de jure or de facto restrictions. Neither Government has provided detailed
information refuting the source’s claim that Mr. Al Jalladi was in fact detained in Yemen on
27 May 2019. Considering the information available to the Working Group, it considers that
the Government of Saudi Arabia and the Government of Yemen have failed to contest the
source’s allegations concerning Mr. Al Jalladi’s date and place of arrest.
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
11
102.
According to the source’s uncontested allegations, Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest on 27 May
2019, extrajudicial rendition and incommunicado detention occurred outside any legal
framework and his continued detention lacks any legal basis. The source submits that Mr. Al
Jalladi was not shown an arrest warrant or provided with the reasons for his arrest, and did
not have an opportunity to challenge the legality of his rendition to Saudi Arabia.
103.
The Working Group recalls 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 and article 9 (2) of the Covenant, as well as principles 2 and
10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment. The Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of
liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest.
The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.8
This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).9
104.
In the absence of a response from the Government of Yemen, the Working Group
finds that no warrant was presented at the time of Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest, and that he was not
provided with the reasons for his arrest, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (2) of the Covenant and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
105.
The source further submits that Mr. Al Jalladi was not brought before a judge during
his detention in Yemen to challenge the legality of his detention, as he was never brought
before a court before leaving Yemen. Instead, he was handed over to Saudi Arabia, outside
any legal procedure and without any legal protection.
106.
Article 9 (4) of the Covenant states that anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or
detention is entitled to take proceedings before a court, so that court may decide without
delay on the lawfulness of the detention and order the person’s release if the detention is not
lawful. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing
human right, which is essential to preserve the legality in a democratic society.10 That right,
which is a peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty,
and to all situations of deprivation of liberty, including not only detention for the purposes of
criminal proceedings, but also situations of detention under administrative and other fields
of law.11 In the absence of a response from the Government of Yemen, the Working Group
considers that Mr. Al Jalladi’s right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court
was thus violated.
107.
As the Working Group has previously observed, international law regarding
extradition provides procedures that must be observed by countries in arresting and detaining
individuals and returning them to face criminal proceedings in another country and in
ensuring that their right to a fair trial is protected.12 There is also an explicating obligation
arising from article 13 of the Covenant, which requires that the person who is to be expelled
“be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by,
and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons
especially designated by the competent authority”. The Working Group finds that all these
requirements were ignored in the present case, and the removal of Mr. Al Jalladi from Yemen
amounted to extraordinary rendition.
108.
Furthermore, as the Working Group has previously explained, because it is aimed at
avoiding all procedural safeguards, the practice of so-called renditions is not compatible with
8 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
9 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.
10 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, paras. 2 and 3.
11 Ibid., para. 47 (a).
12 A/HRC/48/55, paras. 51–60. See also opinions No. 57/2013, No. 2/2015, No. 11/2018 and
No. 23/2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
12
GE.25-08318
international law.13 The Working Group has previously found a violation of article 9 of the
Covenant, and detention to be arbitrary, where individuals were transferred to another
country outside the confines of any legal procedure, such as extradition, and were not allowed
access to counsel or to any judicial body to contest the transfer. 14 The Working Group
considers that Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest and transfer to Saudi Arabia lacked a legal basis and
due process of law, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant.
109.
For these reasons, lacking any information to the contrary, the Working Group finds
that the Government of Yemen failed to establish a legal basis for Mr. Al Jalladi’s detention.
His detention in Yemen and extraordinary rendition to Saudi Arabia were thus arbitrary under
category I.
(ii)
Allegations against Saudi Arabia
110.
The source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi was not shown an arrest warrant or promptly
informed of the charges against him by the Saudi authorities. Reportedly, he was only notified
of the official charges against him on 5 June 2022, after his arrest in Yemen and rendition to
Saudi Arabia, during his hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court. The Government
states that Mr. Al Jalladi was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the competent
authority and informed on the same day as his arrest of the reasons for his arrest, his legal
rights and the charges against him.
111.
In its additional comments, the source reaffirms the arguments presented in its initial
communication and argues that it was during Mr. Al Jalladi’s first hearing on 5 June 2022
that he was able to learn about his prosecution under the anti-terrorism law, contrary to the
Government’s assertions.
112.
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 articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
113.
Given its findings above concerning the discrepancies in the information received
about the date and place of Mr. Al Jalladi’s arrest and considering that his arrest and detention
in Yemen occurred outside any legal framework – making his continued detention without
legal basis – the Working Group notes with concern that the Government of Saudi Arabia
made no reference to Mr. Al Jalladi’s rendition from Yemen to Saudi Arabia. The Working
Group considers that the absence of an explanation on this matter by the Government of
Saudi Arabia indicates that a procedural violation occurred at the time of his arrest,
constituting a breach of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
114.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that the first time that
Mr. Al Jalladi appeared before a judge was on 5 June 2022, that is, more than two years after
his arrest in May 2019. In its response, while the Government’s states that Mr. Al Jalladi was
ordered to appear in court in accordance with article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
after he was charged with the crimes attributed to him, it does not provide the date on which
he was brought before a judge for the first time.
115.
The ability to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the arbitrariness and
lawfulness of detention and to obtain, without delay, appropriate and accessible remedies is
a non-derogable right under international law.15 The right to be promptly brought before a
judicial authority or to bring such proceedings is recognized in articles 9, 10 and 11 (1) of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, principles 11 and 32 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and
principles 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on
Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring
13 A/HRC/4/40, summary, p. 2.
14 Opinion No. 47/2005, para. 19.
15 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 4, paras. 4 and 5;
E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4, paras. 28 and 52; and opinion No. 15/2019, para. 28.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
13
Proceedings Before a Court. The right to challenge detention also underlies the right to an
effective remedy, which is recognized in article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, principles 11 and 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and principles 10 and 11 of the above-mentioned
Basic Principles and Guidelines. Principles 11 (1) and 37 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment support the
contention that detainees have the right to be brought before a judge promptly for an
independent, objective and impartial review of the legal basis for their detention.
116.
In the absence of an justification to the contrary from the Government, the Working
Group concludes that Mr. Al Jalladi was not brought promptly before a judicial officer –
that is, within 48 hours of the arrest barring absolutely exceptional circumstances, in
accordance with the international standard set out in the Working Group’s jurisprudence.16
There is no indication that this delay was the result of any exceptional circumstances that
could justify exceeding the normal 48 hours.
117.
Furthermore, the source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi was held incommunicado and
forcibly disappeared from the moment of his rendition to Saudi Arabia in June 2019 until 18
September 2019, when he was first able to make a brief phone call to his family. During this
period, the source reports that Mr. Al Jalladi was deprived of any contact with the outside
world.
118.
The Working Group recalls that giving prompt and regular access to family members,
as well as to independent medical personnel and lawyers, is an essential and necessary
protection against arbitrary detention and infringement of personal liberty, as well as a
safeguard for the prevention of torture.17 Moreover, prohibiting contact with the outside
world is contrary to rule 58 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
119.
While the Government asserts that the law grants the investigating authority the right
to prevent the accused from contacting others for a specific period when exceptional
necessities require this, it has not explained how this applied in Mr. Al Jalladi’s case. The
Working Group considers that the source has provided sufficient information to conclude
that Mr. Al Jalladi has been held incommunicado.
120.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations that the hearing before the
Specialized Criminal Court on 5 June 2022 was the first time that Mr. Al Jalladi was able to
meet with his State-appointed lawyer. In its response, while the Government submits that Mr.
Al Jalladi was informed of his right to a lawyer and that he sought the assistance of a lawyer
of his choice at the expense of the State, it has failed to establish when Mr. Al Jalladi had
effective access to his lawyer.
121.
The Working Group recalls that in order to ensure effective exercise of this right,
detained persons should have access, from the moment of arrest, to legal assistance of their
own choosing as stipulated in 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.18 This was denied to Mr. Al Jalladi, which further adversely
impacted his ability to effectively exercise his right to challenge the legality of his detention,
in violation of articles 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
122.
The source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi was prosecuted and sentenced under the
Counter-terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, which does not meet the requirements of
lex certa, which thus makes it impossible to invoke any legal basis to justify his deprivation
of liberty. The Government submits that the laws of Saudi Arabia are formulated with
sufficient precision and clarity, and that there is no ambiguity or loose expressions in them.
In this regard, the Working Group notes the concerns about the nature of this legislation
16 Opinions No. 43/2023; and No. 34/2020, para. 51.
17 Opinion No. 19/2022, para. 52.
18 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 9, paras. 12–15.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
14
GE.25-08318
expressed by the Committee against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.19
123.
The Working Group thus finds that Mr. Al Jalladi’s detention does not have a legal
basis and falls under category I.
(b)
Category III
124.
The source submits that Mr. Al Jalladi was denied access to legal counsel from the
moment of his arrest and throughout the period of his incommunicado detention. It asserts
that Mr. Al Jalladi was assigned a lawyer whom he was only able to meet at his first hearing
before the Specialized Criminal Court on 5 June 2022. The Government submits in its
response that Mr. Al Jalladi sought the assistance of two legal representatives, one of whom
is at the State’s expense, and that the trial sessions continued in the presence of Mr. Al Jalladi,
his legal representative and the Public Prosecutor in accordance with article 160 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
125.
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, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.20
126.
Having reviewed the information available to it, the Working Group notes that the
Government has not specified when Mr. Al Jalladi was provided with access to a lawyer. It
also notes that he was held incommunicado for around two months. The Working Group
finds that the Government failed to respect Mr. Al Jalladi’s right to legal assistance, in
violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
127.
The source submits that the Specialized Criminal Court, which held Mr. Al Jalladi’s
trial hearings, is not an impartial or independent body. The Government, in its response,
asserts that the Specialized Criminal Court is an independent and impartial court, which was
established by a decision of the Supreme Council, whose authority to establish courts and
determine their spatial and subject-matter jurisdiction or to merge or abolish them is granted
in article 6 of the Judicial Law. The Government further submits that the establishment of
the Specialized Criminal Court is considered one of the measures taken to enhance justice.
128.
Noting that the Government has not provided any information to cause the Working
Group to depart from its previous findings, the Working Group reiterates that the Specialized
Criminal Court is insufficiently independent of the Ministry of the Interior and thus cannot
be considered an independent and impartial tribunal,21 a concern shared by the Committee
against Torture.22 The Working Group further notes the concerns of the Special Rapporteur
on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism, with regard to the lack of independence of the Court.23
129.
The Working Group therefore remains concerned about the independence and
impartiality of the Specialized Criminal Court and the extent to which the presumption of
innocence and the guarantees necessary for defence are maintained. The trial before the Court
thus contravened article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
130.
Based on the submissions from the source and the Government of Saudi Arabia, the
Working Group concludes that the trial of Mr. Al Jalladi violated article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
19 See communication SAU 12/2020, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25726,
p. 6; and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 16.
20 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 9 and guideline 8;
CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, paras. 14 and 15; and opinion No. 86/2020, para. 78.
21 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 47.
22 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 73; No. 22/2019, para. 74; No. 26/2019, para. 102; No. 56/2019,
para. 86; No. 71/2019, para. 44; and No. 26/2024, paras. 118 and 119.
23 A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 47.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
GE.25-08318
15
131.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations that Mr. Al Jalladi was prosecuted
in Saudi Arabia for the same facts that had previously led to a non-prosecution decision by
the Yemeni authorities in February 2019. The Government rejects the source’s claims.
Taking into consideration all the information available to it, the Working Group considers
that Mr. Al Jalladi was not prosecuted in Yemen, as he was released on the basis of a decision
not to prosecute, and thus does not need to examine further grounds in this regard.
132.
The Working Group thus concludes that Mr. Al Jalladi’s deprivation of liberty is
arbitrary and falls under category III.
(c)
Concluding remarks
133.
The Working Group is concerned at the source’s allegations that since October 2022,
Mr. Al Jalladi has not been allowed to contact his family, and his whereabouts and condition
are unclear. The Working Group recalls that enforced disappearances are prohibited by
international law and constitute a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.24
134.
In its 34-year history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of its
international human rights obligations in over 75 cases.25 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.
135.
The Working Group lauds the expressed willingness of the Government to cooperate
with the Council and its various mechanisms, including the special procedures. In this light,
and recalling its request for a country visit, which was reiterated on 24 August 2021 and 4
February 2022, the Working Group would welcome the opportunity, at the Government’s
earliest convenience, to conduct a visit to Saudi Arabia in order to engage with the
Government in a constructive manner and to offer its assistance in addressing its serious
concerns regarding instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
3.
Disposition
136.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
Regarding Yemen:
The deprivation of liberty of Bassam Shukri Ahmed Mutahar Al Jalladi, being in
contravention of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within category I.
Regarding Saudi Arabia:
The deprivation of liberty of Bassam Shukri Ahmed Mutahar Al Jalladi, being in
contravention of articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
137.
The Working Group requests the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Yemen to take
the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Al Jalladi without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
138.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al Jalladi immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
24 Opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020 and No. 13/2020.
25 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 and No. 71/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/37
16
GE.25-08318
139.
The Working Group urges the Governments to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al
Jalladi and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
140.
The Working Group requests the Governments to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
141.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Governments to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Al Jalladi has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al Jalladi;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Al
Jalladi’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.
142.
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.
143.
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.
144.
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.26
[Adopted on 10 April 2025]
26 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.