Opinion; Subjects: UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, 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.25-14635 (E) 011025 011025
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 43/2025 concerning Charles Ridley
(United Arab Emirates)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 19 March 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the United Arab Emirates a communication concerning
Charles Ridley. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is not a
Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
General Assembly
Distr.: General
1 October 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
2
GE.25-14635
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Charles Ridley, born in 1959, is a British national and a businessman.
(i)
Context
5.
The source submits that Mr. Ridley’s case is similar to the case considered by the
Working Group in its opinion No. 19/2022. Mr. Ridley and the subject of opinion
No. 19/2022 were reportedly business partners and have been subjected to similar breaches
of their basic human rights by the Government.
6.
According to the source, Mr. Ridley was, until 2008, a successful businessman
residing in Bahrain, with experience in financing trade receivables. In 2004, Mr. Ridley,
along with other business partners, including the subject of opinion No. 19/2022, was
involved in the purchasing of a lease on high-profile development land in Dubai. The first
place of development on the land, subsequently known as The Plantation, was financed by
companies controlled by one of Mr. Ridley’s business partners (the person who was the
subject of opinion No. 19/2022) from activities from a foreign factoring company. The
foreign factoring company’s activities, in turn, were financed by Dubai Islamic Bank, with
the foreign factoring company acting as its agent.
7.
The source states that in 2007, at the onset of the financial crisis, Dubai Islamic Bank
recalled its line of credit to the foreign factoring company and required immediate settlement.
Unable to comply because some funds had been invested in medium-term projects such as
The Plantation, the foreign factoring company and Dubai Islamic Bank reportedly
successfully negotiated an agreement permitting the foreign factoring company to repay
loans from Dubai Islamic Bank over a three-year period. Dubai Islamic Bank reportedly made
it a precondition for signing the agreement that Mr. Ridley should stand as a guarantor, with
his personal assets and The Plantation pledged as security. In consideration of this security,
Dubai Islamic Bank reportedly promised never to be involved in any further proceedings
against Mr. Ridley, irrespective of the foreign factoring company’s performance under a
restructuring agreement that had been concluded.
8.
The source further states that Mr. Ridley’s business dealings and the loan associated
with the Plantation development are a matter of high-profile financial and political interest
for the authorities of the United Arab Emirates.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
9.
The source reports that notwithstanding the fact that the foreign factoring company,
Mr. Ridley and his co-guarantors were adhering to the restructuring agreement and
repayment schedule, Mr. Ridley was arrested in May 2008 during a visit to Dubai for his
regular monthly update on the recoveries under the agreement.
10.
According to the source, the arrest was carried out by at least 12 non-uniformed
individuals. When Mr. Ridley opened the door of his hotel room, a pistol was pushed into his
chest and he was pushed down on the sofa while the officers searched his room. The source
states that the individuals did not show Mr. Ridley their identity cards, and it was only
subsequently ascertained that they were from the Dubai Crime Investigation Department.
11.
The source asserts that the authorities did not inform Mr. Ridley of the reasons for his
arrest or present him with an arrest warrant. He was blindfolded and taken to the Dubai Police
Headquarters, with his blindfold removed only after he had been secured in the Dubai Crime
Investigation Department detention facility. According to the source, Mr. Ridley was held in
solitary confinement for several weeks and was told by the authorities that “not even your
Embassy could find you here”.
12.
Moreover, the source reports that the authorities did not inform Mr. Ridley’s family
of his arrest, and only notified the British Embassy five or six days after the arrest.
13.
During his time at the Dubai Crime Investigation Department detention facility,
Mr. Ridley was reportedly taken daily to the Public Prosecutor, who interrogated him from
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
GE.25-14635
3
2 p.m. to 11 p.m., without providing him with food or water. The source notes that during
these interrogations, Mr. Ridley did not have a lawyer present with him.
14.
Approximately three or four weeks after his arrest, Mr. Ridley was transferred from
the Dubai Crime Investigation Department detention facility to Al Awir Prison. It was only
after his arrival at Al Awir Prison that Mr. Ridley first had access to a lawyer.
15.
According to the source, in December 2008 Mr. Ridley was charged with fraud. The
source notes that after seeing the charges, Mr. Ridley’s lawyer withdrew from the
proceedings, demanding an extra million dollars in fees, which Mr. Ridley did not have,
forcing Mr. Ridley to find another lawyer.
16.
The source reports that in 2011, following a protracted and fundamentally flawed trial,
the Dubai Criminal Court of First Instance found Mr. Ridley guilty of embezzling State funds.
He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and was ordered to repay the loan of $501
million along with a fine of $500 million. The source submits that the Court appointed a
translator/interpreter with no financial or general business knowledge: thirty words spoken
by Mr. Ridley during the proceedings would be interpreted in three or four words to the
judges. Moreover, the source submits that the trial was beset by irregularities and the
overwhelming likelihood of bias and external interference. At the conclusion of the trial, and
before any verdict had been given, the trial judge – a national of a third State – allegedly
indicated to the prosecutor that there was insufficient basis to convict Mr. Ridley and his
co-defendants of the charges. That judge was immediately removed and a retrial was ordered,
with a new judge and a new charge of “embezzlement of State funds”, which led to a
conviction.
17.
According to the source, Mr. Ridley and his business partner both served their 10-year
sentences in full, despite having been granted a 25 per cent reduction of their sentences for
good behaviour. Following the completion of his sentence in November 2015, Mr. Ridley
was reportedly not released and continued to be held in custody without an explanation from
the authorities.
18.
On 5 May 2018, several years after the completion of his sentence, Mr. Ridley was
reportedly transferred from prison to a judge’s office, where a lawyer representing Dubai
Islamic Bank was present. The judge allegedly informed Mr. Ridley that Dubai Islamic Bank
had demanded the imposition of an additional 20-year period of detention, pursuant to Law
No. 37 of 2009.
19.
On 13 May 2018, Mr. Ridley was returned to the same office and brought before the
same judge and was informed that, pursuant to Law No. 37 of 2009, his sentence would be
extended by a further 20 years, notwithstanding the fact that he had already served more than
10 years.
20.
According to the source, Law No. 37 of 2009 allows a creditor to request further
imprisonment in circumstances where a prisoner is alleged to have failed to repay a debt. The
source further notes that the law came into force on 31 December 2009, which significantly
postdates the commission of the offences of which Mr. Ridley was convicted.
21.
The source argues that Mr. Ridley’s continued detention amounts to arbitrary
detention, irrespective of whether he has discharged any debt owed to Dubai Islamic Bank.
It submits that a recent judgment from the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution held that,
following the taking over of the Plantation land by Dubai Islamic Bank, the debt owed to
Dubai Islamic Bank had already been discharged.
22.
The source argues that Mr. Ridley has been sentenced to imprisonment following a
flawed trial process, which he was unable to challenge or appeal, and which is based upon a
law that was not in force at the time that the alleged criminal act took place. According to the
source, Mr. Ridley has been unable to appeal the 20-year sentence, as it was entirely based
on whether or not the Bank had received restitution of $430 million. The judge allegedly
made it clear that, regardless of any other factors, if the restitution was not paid, he had no
choice but to impose the 20-year sentence. The source points out that although Dubai Islamic
Bank had not received the restitution, it did hold as security a piece of land reportedly worth
more than the restitution amount. However, the source notes that Dubai Islamic Bank’s legal
representative argued that the security – tied to the restructuring agreement, which was
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
4
GE.25-14635
governed by English law – was irrelevant to the restitution payment in Dubai or the
proceedings under Law No. 37 of 2009. According to the source, this argument was incorrect,
as the sale of the land would have been sufficient to cover the restitution amount. Despite
this, the execution judge accepted Dubai Islamic Bank’s submission and ruled that the land
was irrelevant to whether Dubai Islamic Bank had received the restitution. As a result, the
source considers that it was made clear that appealing the judgment was pointless, as the
restitution had not been paid, and the land would not be considered in the context of the Dubai
proceedings.
23.
According to the source, Mr. Ridley is currently being held at Al Awir Prison, in
conditions that are detrimental to his health. Moreover, he has repeatedly been held in solitary
confinement: for approximately three weeks in 2014, ten days in 2016 and seven days in
2018. During these periods, he was not allowed any contact with his lawyer or with anybody
else.
24.
The source submits that prison conditions in the country are exceptionally poor,
notably due to overcrowding, prisoner violence and lack of access to medical facilities.
Mr. Ridley’s health has continued to deteriorate significantly since the extension of his
sentence, notably because of inadequate nutrition and lack of exercise. He has also developed
chronic problems with the left side of his body. Despite several hospital visits, his symptoms
remain undiagnosed, and he has not received adequate treatment. The source notes that,
currently, Al Awir Prison is providing Mr. Ridley with more nutritious food, at his own
expense, and is allowing him to exercise for one hour each weekday.
(iii)
Legal analysis
25.
The source argues that the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Ridley are arbitrary
under categories I and III of the Working Group’s methods of work.
a.
Category I
26.
The source submits that Mr. Ridley was deprived of his liberty, and remains detained,
without any legal justification. It recalls that, among other things, the basis for justifying
detention must be accessible, understandable, non-retroactive, and applied in a consistent and
predictable way to everyone equally.2
27.
The source argues that Mr. Ridley’s ongoing detention is disproportionate, and recalls
that the Working Group, in examining the definition and scope of arbitrariness, has held that
the notion of arbitrariness includes both the requirement that a particular form of deprivation
of liberty is imposed in accordance with the applicable law and procedure, and that it is
proportionate to the aim sought, reasonable and necessary.3 It further recalls that the Human
Rights Committee has indicated that arbitrariness must be interpreted to take into account
elements of appropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law.4
28.
The source argues that Mr. Ridley’s conviction, and in particular the extension of his
sentence, meet the requisite definition of arbitrariness. Moreover, it considers that Law
No. 37 of 2009, which came into force on 31 December 2009 and on the basis of which
Mr. Ridley is now detained, is punitive and retroactive, since the alleged criminality of which
he was convicted was said to have taken place between 2004 and 2007. Mr. Ridley has been
in custody since March 2008. The source argues that the alleged conduct for which
Mr. Ridley remains in prison thus occurred before the enactment of Law No. 37 of 2009.
29.
The source notes that the principle of nulla poena sine lege is fundamental to the most
basic understanding of the rule of law, enshrined in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and article 15 (1) of the Covenant. It asserts that the enactment of Law
No. 37 of 2009 and its subsequent application to Mr. Ridley’s case represents retroactive law,
and recalls that the Working Group has previously held that a law that was not in force at the
time of the commission of impugned acts cannot serve as the legal basis for detention or
2 A/HRC/22/44, para. 62.
3 Ibid., para. 61.
4 Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
GE.25-14635
5
imprisonment as punishment for the said act.5 The source argues that there is no basis for any
distinction between laws dealing with the commission of offences and laws relating to the
imposition of sentences, as per both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
Covenant.
30.
In addition, the source argues that no relevant law in force in the United Arab Emirates
at the time of the commission of Mr. Ridley’s alleged offences provided for the extended
sentenced that was imposed on him. As such, the source asserts that the imposition of a
20-year sentence is arbitrary within the meaning of category I.
31.
The source further recalls that the Working Group has previously found violations
where individuals have been detained beyond the expiration of their sentences.6 To this end,
the source recalls the judgment of the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution, which, it
claims, makes it clear that no debt is currently owed that would justify the extended
imprisonment.
32.
Moreover, the source argues that Mr. Ridley’s detention is arbitrary regardless of any
debt, as he has no means of discharging it even if any debt were owed. No communication
facilities or opportunities to work or engage with the outside world are available to him, in
violation of article 4 of Law No. 37 of 2009. As a result, he remains effectively
incommunicado and unable to take meaningful steps to address the alleged debt.
b.
Category III
33.
The source argues that Mr. Ridley’s detention is arbitrary under category III as there
have been numerous breaches of his due process and fair trial rights.
34.
Mr. Ridley was reportedly not given any prior notice of the imposition of the extended
sentence. According to the source, he was simply taken back to court, without notice and
without legal representation, and was presented with the extended sentence, as a fait
accompli. Although Mr. Ridley was represented by legal counsel at the second hearing, on
13 May 2018, the court allegedly refused to allow his lawyer to speak because of a
technicality related to power of attorney, and confirmed the extended sentence.
35.
The source submits that Mr. Ridley was not allowed the right to defend himself in
relation to the extended sentence, contrary to principle 11 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; and nor was he
afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, as is provided for in
article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. Moreover, the source argues that, contrary to article 14 (5)
of the Covenant, Mr. Ridley has been expressly blocked from pursuing any appeal in his case
by the authorities, which represents a basic failure of due process and renders his detention
arbitrary. In addition, the source submits that Mr. Ridley has been prevented from working
or otherwise being able to repay the sums that he allegedly owes.
36.
The source argues that the application of Law No. 37 of 2009 is unconstitutional, and
contrary to federal law, and has been applied retroactively. Although Mr. Ridley’s case is
ostensibly for a money settlement matter, the source contends Dubai Islamic Bank holds
security that it has neither cashed nor credited toward the restitution amount, despite the fact
that it was sufficient to cover the obligation. In addition, Mr. Ridley is being actively
prevented from paying the restitution amount. The source emphasizes that in accordance with
article 5 of Law No. 37 of 2009, Mr. Ridley may only be released if the restitution is paid in
full or if an amicable settlement is reached with the bank. Moreover, article 9 provides that
if the restitution remains unpaid at the end of the 20-year term, continued detention is still
possible.
37.
The source asserts that the clear rationale behind Law No. 37 of 2009 is to encourage
settlement and recover funds. In this context, article 4 of the Law explicitly states: “Any
debtor convicted according to this law shall be jailed apart from detainees or those convicted
in penal cases. The prison’s management shall provide the debtor convicted according to this
law with appropriate means of communication acceptable to the prisoner with the outside
5 Opinion No. 10/2018, paras. 42 and 53.
6 See, for example, opinion No. 21/2000. See also E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.2, para. 58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
6
GE.25-14635
world to arrange payment of the payable illegally acquired money or settlement with
creditors.” The source notes that the provision of communication facilities, as envisaged by
article 4 of Law No. 37 of 2009, necessarily includes access to a computer, a telephone for
both incoming and outgoing calls, the Internet, email, and virtual communication platforms
such as Zoom or equivalent. However, according to the source, the prison authorities, acting
on the instructions of the Public Prosecutor – and likely following the directives of the Bank’s
chairman – have refused to provide these facilities. Moreover, the Attorney General of Dubai
reportedly told the British Consulate that “we shall forget that article”. Meanwhile, the Public
Prosecutor reportedly instructed the prison authorities to inform Mr. Ridley that he would be
granted access to a computer only when he was ready to transfer the restitution payment.
38.
For these reasons, the source argues that Mr. Ridley is deliberately being prevented
from working to raise funds to settle the restitution, thus ensuring his continued incarceration.
It adds that, if this were genuinely a matter of debt repayment, the Bank would have
liquidated the security and applied the proceeds to settle the restitution, and Mr. Ridley would
have been granted access to a workspace with adequate facilities to seek opportunities to raise
funds with which to pay. The source considers that these impediments amount to a violation
of Mr. Ridley’s fundamental rights, particularly as the Bank has reportedly acknowledged in
legal proceedings in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that
Mr. Ridley has no funds available.
(b)
Response from the Government
39.
On 19 March 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested
the Government to provide detailed information by 19 May 2025 about the current situation
of Mr. Ridley. The Working Group also requested the Government to clarify the legal
provisions justifying his detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of the
United Arab Emirates under international human rights law. Moreover, the Working Group
called upon the Government to ensure his physical and mental integrity.
40.
The Working Group regrets that the Government did not respond to the allegations
transmitted to it.
2.
Discussion
41.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
42.
In determining whether Mr. Ridley’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 requirements constituting
arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if
it wishes to refute the allegations. In the present case, the Government has chosen not to
challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.7
43.
It must be noted at the outset that the source’s claims are focused on the ongoing
detention of Mr. Ridley on the basis of the additional sentence imposed, rather than on the
initial arrest and trial process (though the source notes that it also considers that these were
unlawful). Accordingly, the Working Group will conduct its analysis of the application of
the categories of arbitrary detention in relation to the extension of Mr. Ridley’s detention and
his ongoing detention on the basis of this extension.
(a)
Category I
44.
The source argues that the detention is arbitrary under category I because Mr. Ridley
remains detained without any legal justification after the completion of his sentence. The
Government has elected not to respond to these allegations.
45.
The source reports that Mr. Ridley’s extended detention is pursuant to Law No. 37 of
2009, which came into force on 31 December 2009, and therefore is retroactive as regards
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
GE.25-14635
7
the alleged criminality occurring from 2004 to 2007 for which Mr. Ridley was arrested,
charged, tried and convicted.
46.
The principle of nulla poena sine lege is a fundamental protection, enshrined in
article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that: “No one
shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the
time the penal offence was committed.” The Working Group observes that the principle of
legality (nulla poena sine lege) is a fundamental guarantee, which includes:
(a)
The principle of non-retroactivity (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
praevia);
(b)
The prohibition against analogy (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege stricta);
(c)
The principle of certainty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege certa);
(d)
The prohibition against uncodified, unwritten or judge-made criminal
provisions (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege scripta).8
47.
The Working Group notes the source’s detailed submissions regarding the extension
of Mr. Ridley’s sentence based on Law No. 37 of 2009, and his continued detention despite
having completed his sentence for the crime for which he was convicted. Given the lack of a
response from the Government, the Working Group concludes that Law No. 37 of 2009 was
applied retroactively and that this violated Mr. Ridley’s rights under, notably, article 11 (2)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thereby rendering his detention arbitrary.
48.
The source contends, in the alternative, that even if the retroactive application of Law
No. 37 did not amount to a violation, Mr. Ridley’s continued detention beyond the conclusion
of his sentence, on the basis of the alleged non-payment of his debt, is arbitrary. It notes that
a judgment of the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution confirmed that there is no debt
and that, in any event, there is no mechanism for him to pay the debt, and no communication
facilities or other provisions have been made such as to enable Mr. Ridley to work or engage
with the outside world in order to discharge the alleged debt.
49.
In this respect, the Working Group notes the source’s unrefuted assertion that a
decision of the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution establishes that no debt is currently
owed to justify the extended term of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Ridley. In light of the
lack of any response from the Government, and given the concerning circumstances of
detention being extended beyond the completion of a sentence for a criminal offence on the
basis of alleged non-payment of a debt, the Working Group is satisfied that this conduct also
constitutes a violation of Mr. Ridley’s right only to be detained on a proper lawful basis,
under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group notes that
inability to fulfil a contractual condition, such as paying a debt, should not be a basis for
detaining a person in prison. This is made clear in previous opinions and reports of the
Working Group, and in the Arab Charter on Human Rights.9 The Working Group considers
that Mr. Ridley remains convicted precisely on the basis of his inability to pay the purported
debt, while being held in conditions whereby he cannot engage in gainful employment or
activity so as to repay the claim.
50.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that the detention of
Mr. Ridley is arbitrary within the meaning of category I.
8 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 50; and No. 75/2023.
9 See opinion No. 75/2020; E/CN.4/2002/77, para. 60; A/HRC/45/16/Add.2; and A/HRC/42/39/Add.1,
para. 65. See also art. 18 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights; and decision No. 9 of 2024 of the
General Assembly of the Dubai Court of Cassation, dated 15 May 2024, in which it was stated that a
debtor cannot be imprisoned unless the creditor submits proof that the debtor has the means to pay, or
the debtor is involved in transferring or concealing assets, or the debtor owns assets that may be
seized and liquidated to fulfil the debt.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
8
GE.25-14635
(b)
Category III
51.
The source submits that the process in which Mr. Ridley’s detention was extended
involved numerous breaches of his due process and fair trial rights. The Government has not
responded to these allegations.
52.
Specifically, the source submits that Mr. Ridley was not provided with prior notice of
the imposition of the extended sentence, that he was not afforded the right to make
submissions at the hearing at which that sentence was imposed, and that he was not
represented by legal counsel until the second hearing, on 13 May 2018, during which his
legal counsel was unable to make submissions. Therefore, he has had no opportunity to
challenge that extended sentence.
53.
Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “everyone is
entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal,
in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”.
Moreover, principle 11 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that “a person shall not be kept in detention
without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other
authority. A detained person shall have the right to defend himself.” Guideline 5 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 provides that “the factual and
legal basis for the detention shall be disclosed to the detainee and/or his or her representative
without delay so as to provide adequate time to prepare the challenge”.
54.
Having considered the source’s allegations that the process for the extension of
Mr. Ridley’s detention violated his rights, and noting that the Government has chosen not to
respond to these allegations, the Working Group concludes that the failure to provide him
with notice of the hearing in which his sentence was extended, and the prevention of his
meaningful participation in this process, amounted to violations of his rights under, notably,
article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the conditions in which
he was held, without access to a lawyer and his family for long periods, and without access
to a computer or other facilities, created obstacles to his meaningful participation in the
proceedings. Whereas he should have been able to contest, through his lawyer, the basis for
the extended detention, he was effectively prevented from doing so due to the lack of notice
about hearings and the inability to confer with his counsel, among other obstructions. These
violations undermined his fair trial rights and consequently contributed to his ongoing
arbitrary detention.
55.
The Working Group notes that these findings are largely consistent with those in its
opinion No. 19/2022 concerning Mr. Ridley’s business partner, who, the Working Group
noted with concern:
(a)
Was not given any prior notice of the imposition of the extended sentence;
(b)
Was not afforded the right to make submissions at the closed-door meeting at
which that sentence was imposed and was not legally represented during that meeting;
(c)
Was deprived of any ability to challenge the extended sentence.
56.
In its opinion No. 19/2022, the Working Group held, in the absence of a rebuttal by
the Government, that the detained individual’s right to have his conviction and sentence
reviewed by a higher tribunal had not been respected, contrary to articles 8, 10 and 11 (1) of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here, however, the source has not provided
further information regarding Mr. Ridley’s right to review.
57.
The Working Group notes that the violations are particularly onerous as the 20-year
sentence may be extended again after its completion and Mr. Ridley is reportedly prevented
from accessing a computer to engage in productive efforts to raise funds to repay the alleged
debt.
(c)
Concluding remarks
58.
As noted, the source submits that the prison authorities have refused to provide
facilities to enable Mr. Ridley to work productively to try to repay the claimed debt. It
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
GE.25-14635
9
emphasizes that article 4 of Law No. 37 of 2009 states: “Any debtor convicted according to
this law shall be jailed apart from detainees or those convicted in penal cases. The prison’s
management shall provide the debtor convicted according to this law with appropriate means
of communication acceptable to the prisoner with the outside world to arrange payment of
the payable illegally acquired money or settlement with creditors.” The source submits that
if the issue were genuinely about debt repayment, the bank would have liquidated the security
and applied the proceeds to settle the restitution, and Mr. Ridley would have been granted
access to a workspace with adequate facilities to seek opportunities to raise funds with which
to pay. Noting that this claim has not been refuted, the Working Group considers that the
effect of depriving Mr. Ridley of access to equipment needed to try to repay the alleged debt
has the effect of trapping him in a potentially endless cycle of detention, long after he has
completed the sentence for the crime of which he was convicted. The Government should
review the legislation and its application to avoid such debt-detention traps. The unrefuted
facts indicate that the legislation creates a high risk of arbitrary detention, as has happened in
the case of Mr. Ridley. Its terms and application require urgent attention to avoid this
occurring on an ongoing basis.
59.
The Working Group also notes the source’s submission that prison conditions in the
country are exceptionally poor, and that Mr. Ridley’s health has continued to deteriorate
significantly since the extension of his sentence. The Working Group recalls that the poor
health of a detained person or poor conditions of detention may compromise his or her ability
to participate in judicial proceedings and prepare his or her defence, in violation of article 10
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.10 It recalls that under principle 24 of the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
“medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary” to detained persons.
“This care and treatment shall be provided free of charge”. Article 1 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)
provides that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and dignity,
and several of the rules require that detainees be provided with sufficient healthcare and
treatment when needed, including rules 24, 25, 27 and 30.
3.
Disposition
60.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Charles Ridley, being in contravention of articles 9, 10
and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I and III.
61.
The Working Group requests the Government of the United Arab Emirates to take the
steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Ridley without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
62.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Ridley immediately and accord him an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
63.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Ridley and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
64.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
10 Opinions No. 46/2014, para. 37; No. 29/2017, para. 63; No. 59/2019, para. 69; and No. 31/2022,
para. 99.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/43
10
GE.25-14635
4.
Follow-up procedure
65.
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. Ridley has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Ridley;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Ridley’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 the United Arab Emirates with its international
obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
66.
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.
67.
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.
68.
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.11
[Adopted on 26 August 2025]
11 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.