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.25-15058 (E)
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. 59/2025 concerning Albert Douglas (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 25 April 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the United Arab Emirates a communication concerning
Albert Douglas. 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/2025/59
General Assembly
Distr.: General
20 October 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
2
GE.25-15058
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Albert Douglas, born in 1962, is a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and a Roma Traveller. He has resided in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, with
his family since 2003, and he has established a successful trade supplies business there.
(i)
Context
5.
According to the source, in the United Arab Emirates, relatives of debtors are often
falsely accused of crimes and detained in order to extort debtors to pay their creditors.
6.
In August 2019, upon returning to Dubai following a trip abroad, Mr. Douglas was
arrested and detained. The criminal case against him was reportedly a result of debts incurred
by a company operated by his family member, but in which Mr. Douglas was not involved.
7.
During Mr. Douglas’s detention, several individuals linked to his family member’s
business reportedly encouraged others to come forward and file claims against Mr. Douglas,
some of which, the source claims, were allegedly fabricated with the assistance of the police.
8.
The source alleges that these actions were intended to allow claimants to profit by
exploiting Mr. Douglas’s vulnerable position while in detention. According to the source, the
claimants used “wasta” (influence or connections) to pressure the local police into
intimidating Mr. Douglas. The source further notes that Mr. Douglas was not brought before
a judge during his detention and was later released on bail pending the scheduling of a court
date.
9.
The source states that, when Mr. Douglas received threats from creditors, he informed
them that they would have to contact those who administered his family member’s business
instead. Mr. Douglas believed that he was not responsible and could not be prosecuted, as he
had no direct or indirect involvement in the company.
10.
According to the source, Mr. Douglas pursued legal remedies in the United Arab
Emirates, including before the Supreme Court. He was reportedly informed by the Public
Prosecutor multiple times, off the record, of the latter’s intent to secure a conviction despite
being aware of his innocence. Mr. Douglas was reportedly advised by all lawyers involved
in his case at the time that the proceedings were rigged and, despite his widely acknowledged
innocence, unwinnable. As a result, and while he was willing to stand trial, he reportedly lost
confidence in the legal system and felt compelled to seek refuge from what he viewed as
persecution aimed at extorting him. By that point, Mr. Douglas had already spent millions of
dirhams on lawyers, public relations representatives and others who, according to the source,
extorted him through high-level connections. He was reportedly being blackmailed daily and
faced financial ruin.
11.
As a result, Mr. Douglas instructed lawyers to help to resolve the matter and decided
to return to the United Kingdom to visit his family.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
12.
The source submits that, on 17 February 2021, at approximately 2 a.m., Mr. Douglas
was arrested at the border by the United Arab Emirates Army when trying to cross to Oman
from Al Ain, in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. He was stripped naked and
hooded.
13.
Mr. Douglas was reportedly not presented with an arrest warrant, and he was slapped,
insulted and told to keep quiet whenever he asked questions. The source claims that arresting
officers stood on his neck, even though he had raised his hands and was begging them not to
shoot him. In addition, the source notes that the arresting officers confiscated or stole money
and other belongings that Mr. Douglas was carrying.
14.
The source states that, after his arrest, Mr. Douglas was taken to an army barracks,
where he was held for two days, before being transferred between several prisons and ending
up in Al Ain central prison in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, where he was placed in solitary
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
GE.25-15058
3
confinement for 10 days, in a small cell with poor ventilation. He was allegedly severely
beaten when he asked for his heart medication.
15.
According to the source, Mr. Douglas’s whereabouts were unknown for 10 days
following his arrest, during which time his family deployed significant resources in their
attempt to find him, including by searching hospitals and police stations, as well as on legal
counsel. He was allowed a single call to his family 10 days after his arrest, and a second one
a week later. The source notes that each call was no longer than six minutes.
16.
The source explains that Mr. Douglas was sentenced to 30 days in prison for
attempting to leave the United Arab Emirates, a charge that reportedly triggered an automatic
sentence that could not be challenged. Despite the official length of the sentence, he
reportedly served twice as long due to confusion on the part of the authorities and what the
source describes as “interference” by outside parties.
17.
While he was being held at Al Ain central prison, Mr. Douglas, who does not
understand Arabic, was allegedly interrogated for several days without being allowed the
assistance of an interpreter, in addition to being physically assaulted and questioned about
foreign smugglers. According to the source, he was forced to answer questions while being
aggressively handled and having his feet and hands chained. The source further reports that
officials stood over him and kicked him repeatedly in the head while interrogating him. On
one occasion, three prison guards allegedly entered Mr. Douglas’s prison cell and hit him in
the head until he lost consciousness, causing head injuries, a dislocated shoulder, fractures in
his hands, and blurred vision. The source submits that he received no medical care for these
injuries.
18.
The source further reports that Mr. Douglas suffers from a permanent heart condition,
requiring daily medication, which was denied by the prison authorities. The source adds that
Mr. Douglas was deprived of food and water and forced to drink water from the toilet and
that, due to his hand and shoulder injuries following his assault, he struggled to shower or
use the toilet. The source submits that prison guards also threatened Mr. Douglas’s life.
19.
In April 2021, the Al Ain court allegedly issued a deportation order against
Mr. Douglas. Around the same time, however, he was transferred to the headquarters of the
General Department of Criminal Investigation in Dubai.
20.
The source describes a gruelling process to transfer Mr. Douglas from Al Ain to
Dubai, which lasted approximately 32 hours, during which time he was denied water and
food, left outside under the sun or at night on several occasions for multiple hours each time,
and ferried back and forth between Al Ain and Dubai no less than five times. By then, he had
suffered a stroke due to not being allowed his heart medication.
21.
On 7 May 2021, Mr. Douglas was, according to the source, transferred to Bur Dubai
police station, where he was interrogated by senior General Department of Criminal
Investigation officers over several nights, and physically and mentally tortured to force him
to sign a confession, which he refused to do.
22.
Around June 2021, Mr. Douglas was transferred to Dubai central jail, where he
learned of a criminal case against him in relation to a cheque that had bounced. The source
notes that the case was initially built on the assumption that Mr. Douglas was involved in his
family member’s business, which was based solely on a single cheque issued as security for
a warehouse finance agreement with Abu Dhabi Finance, which he was alleged to have
signed. The Public Prosecutor argued that this cheque demonstrated Mr. Douglas’s
involvement in the business. Mr. Douglas denied this claim and requested the authorities to
have the cheque forensically analysed. Moreover, the source submits that Mr. Douglas was
not allowed legal counsel.
23.
While Mr. Douglas was able to communicate with his family on the telephone after
being transferred to Dubai central jail, the source notes that his calls were monitored and
regularly interrupted.
24.
According to the source, Mr. Douglas’s torture and ill-treatment were made public
and shared with the Government of the United Kingdom, leading the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom to enquire with the
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
4
GE.25-15058
authorities of the United Arab Emirates about his medical care. The authorities of the United
Arab Emirates, however, falsely assured the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office that Mr. Douglas had received his medication, even though that was not the case until
nine months after his arrest.
25.
The source reports that the Dubai central jail authorities denied any wrongdoing when
the British authorities raised concerns about allegations of abuse against Mr. Douglas,
blaming Al Ain prison authorities instead. Moreover, Mr. Douglas was allegedly forced to
tell the Embassy of the United Kingdom that he was being cared for well, and to ask his
family to communicate the same information to the Embassy.
26.
In response to the complaints made to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office of the United Kingdom, Mr. Douglas was reportedly frogmarched from his cell in the
middle of the night and was interviewed for several hours about his case and his alleged
torture.
27.
The source submits that, approximately six months after his arrest, Mr. Douglas
appeared for the first time before a judge. Until then, he had not been offered any State legal
aid, despite having become completely financially destitute. His bank accounts had been
frozen or closed, his assets seized, and his belongings – including business inventory –
reportedly looted, with the alleged involvement of police officers. The source notes that, at
that stage, Mr. Douglas was no longer able to make payments on his mortgaged properties or
to meet other financial obligations such as paying staff salaries and utility bills, leading to
further legal complications.
28.
According to the source, around two months thereafter, Mr. Douglas was transferred
to Al Awir central prison to serve a two-year sentence following a conviction in absentia. His
lawyer informed him that a guilty verdict had simply been read out without the possibility of
any submissions being made at trial.
29.
The source, moreover, states that, following the forensic investigation into the
bounced cheque, it was concluded that it had not been signed by Mr. Douglas. Despite this
finding, his conviction remained unchanged, and the case was closed.
30.
In November 2022, Mr. Douglas was reportedly taken to a hospital and assessed as
having multiple broken bones and a dislocated shoulder. The source explains that, because
he had not received medical attention at the time of his injuries, his bones had healed
improperly and needed to be rebroken and realigned. Although he underwent one surgery, he
was informed he would need several others, but that this would take at least six months due
to the hospital’s busy schedule. The source states that, during his stay at the hospital, General
Department of Criminal Investigation officers tried to force Mr. Douglas to thank the Head
of State and the Dubai prison authorities publicly in exchange for the payment of the hospital
bills, but Mr. Douglas refused to do so. Mr. Douglas was allegedly sent back to prison after
his surgery, without being given any painkillers.
31.
The source reports that, in November 2022, due to pressure from Members of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
of the United Kingdom, the authorities of the United Arab Emirates began an investigation
into Mr. Douglas’s mistreatment in prison. As a result, Mr. Douglas was brought before a
panel of medical professionals to assess his condition, and his injuries were found to be
consistent with his account of the torture. He was consequently brought before the Al Ain
Public Prosecution four days later, where he was interviewed for hours by four high-ranking
government officials and forensic doctors.
32.
Mr. Douglas has, according to the source, spent his life savings on lawyers and no
longer has any funds to expend on legal fees. Since his arrest in February 2021, he has
allegedly been able to communicate with his lawyers only by telephone or through family
members, with telephone calls capped at 10 minutes each and the telephone system in the
prison not always functioning. Moreover, the source claims that all of Mr. Douglas’s requests
for visits have been denied since his arrest. In addition, several lawyers have taken large
amounts of money from Mr. Douglas in exchange for little to no apparent gain, and his
requests for legal aid have been ignored.
33.
In 2022, a travel ban was allegedly issued against Mr. Douglas.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
GE.25-15058
5
34.
In November 2023, 10 days before completing his sentence, Mr. Douglas was
pardoned by the Ruler of Dubai for the crime of which he was convicted in connection with
the cheque that bounced. However, he remained in prison for civil cases, despite these having
been cancelled due to a change in the law in August 2023.
35.
According to the source, his continued detention appears to result from a conflict
between a travel ban issued by the immigration department and the deportation order issued
in April 2021. Neither Mr. Douglas nor the Embassy of the United Kingdom has been
informed of the legal basis for these measures. The source further alleges that the cases in
question were handled in secret, without transparency or the opportunity for legal
representation, and suggests that his detention may be intended to prevent him from speaking
publicly upon release. Despite repeated efforts to resolve the issue through the Government
of the United Kingdom, the relevant departments reportedly remain uncommunicative.
36.
Furthermore, despite repeated requests from both the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office of the United Kingdom and Mr. Douglas’s representatives, no definitive
information has reportedly been provided regarding his case numbers or the length of
sentence remaining, and there has been no clear explanation of what time served is being
attributed to which convictions. According to the source, the responses received from the
courts have been inconsistent and inaccurate, with no official confirmation provided in
writing or through any verifiable means. The Embassy of the United Kingdom has confirmed
that no legal recourse currently remains, and that no information has been provided regarding
the specifics of his sentencing. Moreover, legal representation has not been permitted by the
Public Prosecution, further obstructing due process.
37.
The source argues that the situation is exacerbated by the fact that any financial
challenges faced by Mr. Douglas are a direct consequence of actions taken against him by
authorities of the United Arab Emirates, including the freezing of his bank accounts and the
subsequent loss of income, which rendered him unable to meet financial obligations. In
addition, it is reported that several of the claims made against Mr. Douglas have been
exaggerated, manipulated or fabricated. The source argues that these claims appear to have
been strategically presented by local actors, who may have sought to exploit his status as a
foreign national with perceived wealth.
38.
The source reports that Mr. Douglas has suffered from several strokes throughout his
detention. Moreover, he was the victim of a physical attack by another inmate, and he was
strangled with a telephone wire. Although he is held in a section of Dubai central jail
designated for older or medically vulnerable inmates, the source considers that he lives in
constant fear. In addition, he reportedly suffers from Alzheimer’s disease as a result of his
head injury.
(iii)
Legal analysis
39.
The source argues that the arrest and detention of Mr. Douglas are arbitrary under
categories I, II, III and V.
a.
Category I
40.
The source claims that Mr. Douglas’s arrest and subsequent detention lack any legal
basis. He has been deprived of his liberty due to a bounced cheque that he did not write, and
in retaliation for his family member’s business issues in Dubai.
41.
The source asserts that Mr. Douglas was arrested without a warrant by members of
the United Arab Emirates Army, who, moreover, did not properly identify themselves. He
was held in solitary confinement and was denied communication with his family and legal
counsel.
42.
The source recalls that the legal basis for detention must be accessible and applied
consistently and predictably to all individuals.2 In Mr. Douglas’s case, it is submitted that the
legal justification for his detention is not accessible, and his treatment has been harsh and
abusive. Furthermore, the conditions of his detention have not been comparable to those of
2 A/HRC/22/44, para. 62.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
6
GE.25-15058
other detainees in similar circumstances. The source notes, for instance, that the authorities
reportedly asked Mr. Douglas to produce a propaganda video for the Head of State.
43.
The source argues that, during his detention, Mr. Douglas was severely beaten by
prison guards, despite his age and heart condition. Moreover, the source claims that
Mr. Douglas was sentenced even though the court-appointed independent forensic expert
confirmed that he had not written the cheque that bounced. According to the source, the
evidence in favour of Mr. Douglas was ignored at the Government’s direction, and he was
not released in order to prevent him from publicizing his ill-treatment in detention. He was
also unable to challenge the legality of his detention, contrary to principle 3 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
44.
Furthermore, Mr. Douglas was arrested on 17 February 2021 and, in November 2023,
he completed his sentence and received a pardon from the Ruler of Dubai. Even though his
release was ordered, however, Mr. Douglas remained in custody and continues to be detained
because the travel ban issued in 2022 against him conflicts with the deportation order of April
2021.
45.
The source therefore concludes that Mr. Douglas’s detention is arbitrary, falling under
category I.
b.
Category II
46.
The source submits that Mr. Douglas was discriminated against by authorities and
throughout the judicial process due to being a foreign national of Christian faith and a
member of the Roma minority ethnic group. He was allegedly mistreated and verbally abused
by prison authorities for being a non-Muslim and non-Arabic speaker.
47.
The source refers to case law from the High Court of England and Wales confirming
the real risk of unfair trials, discrimination, human rights abuses and torture within the
judicial framework of the United Arab Emirates.3 It argues that those perceived to have
access to money, as well as those whom the Government wishes to censor, are often subjected
to arbitrary and extended detention. The source claims that wealthy foreign business people
are often targeted by the authorities through methods including freezing or seizing assets,
deliberately misusing the judiciary to force a victim to spend money on a legal process, and
bribing judges, members of the royal family or public officials.
48.
In fact, the source argues, Mr. Douglas and his family have been approached by prison
officials and others asking for large amounts of money to close his case. On one occasion,
Mr. Douglas was reportedly asked to hand over hundreds of thousands of dirhams in cash to
secure his freedom.
49.
The source further posits that the discrimination faced by Mr. Douglas is demonstrated
by the court’s disregard of the expert forensic evidence exonerating him.
50.
For these reasons, the source concludes that Mr. Douglas’s deprivation of liberty is
arbitrary, in violation of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the
Government has failed to provide him with equal protection before the law by reason of his
citizenship of the United Kingdom and Romani descent, and because he exercised his right
to freedom of expression by reporting having been tortured.
c.
Category III
51.
The source argues that Mr. Douglas’s arrest and subsequent detention are arbitrary
under category III, as he has been denied the right to due process.
52.
The source claims that Mr. Douglas is being held as a financial hostage in the United
Arab Emirates, in the hope that his family will pay for his freedom, and that he has been
beaten, abused and tortured to make him confess to crimes that he has not committed.
Moreover, the source asserts that Mr. Douglas has been subjected to inhuman and cruel
sleeping conditions, often in overcrowded facilities where there was no space on the concrete
floor for him to sleep, no windows and unsanitary conditions, in violation of rules 12 to 21 of
3 Lodhi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Judgment [2010] EWHC 567 (Admin).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
GE.25-15058
7
the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules).
53.
The source submits that, considering its intensity, severity and duration, the treatment
endured by Mr. Douglas while in detention reaches the threshold of torture. Following his
arrest on 17 February 2021, he suffered extreme physical abuse to the point that he was
rendered unconscious, with bleeding from his head, and he suffers from broken bones that
require surgery, as well as living in constant fear. Moreover, he was reportedly forced to
drink water from the toilet and threatened on a regular basis.
54.
It is further submitted that Mr. Douglas has been consistently denied access to
medicine, including his heart medication, and healthcare, including surgery for his broken
bones following beatings from prison guards. According to the source, the authorities have
done this in order to force Mr. Douglas’s family to pay the money demanded by third parties
in return for his freedom. The source concludes, on that basis, that Mr. Douglas was subjected
to inhuman treatment, which may amount to torture, contrary to rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules and principles 1, 2 and 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
55.
Furthermore, the source submits that Mr. Douglas was under constant threat of
violence against him, with regular attempts to force him to confess to crimes and to retract
complaints of torture. He was also reportedly threatened to make him praise the Head of State
and the prison authorities for their treatment of him. The source notes that Mr. Douglas has
not been able to learn the identities of his interrogators, and no interviews were ever recorded,
preventing him from being able to make a complaint. The source asserts that this is contrary
to principles 21 and 23 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
56.
The source claims, in addition, that Mr. Douglas was repeatedly intimidated into
signing documents in Arabic and threatened with physical abuse and solitary confinement if
he refused to sign. The source asserts that this is contrary to principle 14 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
It further recalls that, under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every
individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Given that the authorities have disregarded their own expert forensic evidence, the source
contends that it is impossible for Mr. Douglas to challenge his detention before a truly
independent and unbiased judiciary.
57.
The source argues, moreover, that Mr. Douglas has been unable to secure legal
representation, in addition to being regularly denied the ability to communicate with his
family, the Embassy of the United Kingdom and his legal counsel, contrary to principles 15,
16, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
58.
Lastly, the source submits that Mr. Douglas has been repeatedly denied his right to
health, by being denied his heart medication and surgery for his broken bones. According to
the source, the authorities told him that he had to pay for surgery and medical care, as a way
to extort him into making false statements in respect of his treatment in prison, even though
his injuries were a result of being subjected to torture. As such, the source asserts that the
Government violated article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rules 5,
25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
d.
Category V
59.
With regard to category V, the source submits that Mr. Douglas has been denied
access to a fair trial based on his ethnicity and his economic condition. According to the
source, it is extremely difficult to obtain a fair hearing as a foreigner, and Mr. Douglas’s
assets made him a target for the authorities.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
8
GE.25-15058
(b)
Response from the Government
60.
In accordance with its methods of work, on 25 April 2025, the Working Group
transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular
communication procedure, requesting a reply by 24 June.
61.
The Working Group regrets that the Government did not submit a reply, nor did it
seek an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work.
(c)
Additional information from the source
62.
On 26 May 2025, the source informed the Working Group that Mr. Douglas had been
released on 26 April 2025. He is still not allowed to leave the country, as he remains subject
to a travel ban and, according to the source, is at risk of being arrested again.
2.
Discussion
63.
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.
64.
In determining whether Mr. Douglas’s detention was 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.4
65.
At the outset, the Working Group notes that Mr. Douglas was released on 26 April
2025, although he remains subject to a travel ban. In accordance with paragraph 17 (a) of its
methods of work, the Working Group reserves the right to render an opinion on whether the
deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of the person concerned.
Mr. Douglas is alleged to have been the victim of serious violations of his rights, including
troubling allegations of torture and ill-treatment. The Working Group therefore considers it
important to render an opinion on his case.
(a)
Category I
66.
The source submits that Mr. Douglas’s arrest and detention lack any legal basis.
Among the reasons given for this assertion are, first, that Mr. Douglas has been deprived of
his liberty due to a bounced cheque that he did not write; second, that Mr. Douglas was
arrested without a warrant by members of the United Arab Emirates Army who did not
properly identify themselves; and third, that Mr. Douglas remained in detention despite
having completed his sentence and having received a pardon from the Ruler of Dubai.
67.
The Government did not respond to the allegations.
68.
The Working Group has stated time and again that, in order for a deprivation of liberty
to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The
authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.5 This is
typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document). 6 The
reasons for arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the
general legal basis for the arrest, but also enough factual specifics to indicate the substance
of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.7
69.
International law on detention includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant
or equivalent document, except in cases where the arrest is made in flagrante delicto, to
ensure the exercise of effective control by a competent, independent and impartial judicial
authority, which is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and the
4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
5 For instance, opinions No. 43/2023, para. 39; and No. 23/2025, para. 65.
6 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
7 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 59/2019, para. 46; and No. 85/2021,
para. 69; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
GE.25-15058
9
prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
70.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Douglas only learned of the reasons for his arrest
around June 2021, approximately four months after his arrest. Given that the source’s
allegations on this point and on the circumstances of his arrest are uncontested, the Working
Group finds that the failure to provide Mr. Douglas with an arrest warrant and to inform him
of the reasons for his arrest in a timely manner violates articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, thereby rendering
his arrest devoid of any legal basis.
71.
With regard to the allegation, equally unchallenged by the Government, that
Mr. Douglas remained in detention (until his release in April 2025), despite completing his
sentence and being pardoned by the Ruler of Dubai in November 2023, the Working Group
considers that, if a person is not released despite being pardoned, and no other legal basis can
be shown to justify his or her continued detention, the deprivation of liberty is necessarily
arbitrary. The Working further notes that, immediately upon his arrest in February 2021,
Mr. Douglas was sentenced to 30 days in prison for attempting to leave the United Arab
Emirates, but that he subsequently served twice as long, notably due to confusion on the part
of the authorities. The Working Group recalls that detention, even for a day after a release
was ordered, constitutes arbitrary detention.8
72.
The Working Group is concerned about the source’s claim that Mr. Douglas’s
whereabouts were unknown for 10 days following his arrest, despite his family expending
considerable resources to find him. Again, this is unchallenged by the Government. Given
that the Government did not, based on the information available to the Working Group,
provide information about his whereabouts after his arrest or demonstrate that his family was
informed accordingly, the Working Group considers that Mr. Douglas was subjected to
enforced disappearance in breach of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.9
It recalls that enforced disappearances are prohibited by international law and constitute a
particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.10 They are also inherently arbitrary, as
they place the person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
73.
Reinforcing the finding that Mr. Douglas was placed outside the protection of the law
is the source’s prima facie credible claim, which is unrebutted, that Mr. Douglas was not
presented before a judge until six months after his arrest. 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.11
The right to be promptly brought before a judicial authority or to bring legal proceedings is
protected by 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 the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines
on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring
Proceedings Before a Court. The right to challenge a detention also underlies the right to an
effective remedy, which is notably recognized in article 8 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
74.
The Working Group considers that the evident failure to bring Mr. Douglas promptly
before a judge within 48 hours, which is the international standard applied in the Working
8 Opinion No. 1/2021, para. 84.
9 For instance, opinion No. 43/2023, paras. 49 and 50.
10 See opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 13/2020 and No. 43/2023.
11 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. The right
to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a judicial authority is considered part of customary
international law, which applies regardless of whether a State is a Party to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4, paras. 28 and 52). See also opinion No. 15/2019,
para. 28.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
10
GE.25-15058
Group’s jurisprudence,12 and to provide him with an independent, objective and impartial
review of his detention therefore violated articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
75.
Based on the foregoing, the Working Group considers that Mr. Douglas’s detention is
arbitrary within the meaning of category I.
(b)
Category II
76.
The source makes a number of submissions under category II, namely, that
Mr. Douglas was discriminated against by authorities for being a non-Muslim, a non-Arabic
speaker and of Roma ethnicity. The source also claims that wealthy foreign nationals are
often targeted by the authorities.
77.
These allegations do not concern the exercise of rights and freedoms but pertain
instead to discrimination. The Working Group will accordingly examine them under category
V below.
78.
The Working Group nevertheless notes the source’s argument that Mr. Douglas’s
detention may have been prolonged because he exercised his right to freedom of expression
by reporting his ill-treatment. The Government has not challenged this allegation.
79.
The Working Group recalls that arrest or detention is arbitrary if used to punish an
individual for the legitimate exercise of the rights protected by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, including freedom of opinion and expression. The Working Group considers
that detained individuals retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, except for those limitations that are demonstrably
necessitated by the fact of incarceration, as stipulated in principle 5 of the Basic Principles
for the Treatment of Prisoners. In the present case, Mr. Douglas exercised his freedom of
expression to report his ill-treatment in detention. In the absence of any information to the
contrary from the Government, the Working Group accepts the source’s claim that
Mr. Douglas’s continued detention may have been a result of his exercise of freedom of
expression in accordance with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
principle 5 of the Basic Principles. His detention was therefore arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
80.
The source argues that Mr. Douglas’s arrest and subsequent detention are arbitrary
under category III, as he has been denied the right to due process.
81.
The source’s allegations include that Mr. Douglas suffered extreme physical abuse,
some of which resulted in broken bones. His ill-treatment reportedly included being forced
to drink water from the toilet, in addition to being subjected to inhuman and cruel sleeping
conditions, and a denial of medical care following physical ill-treatment. The source argues
that the treatment endured by Mr. Douglas while in detention, considering its intensity,
severity and duration, reaches the threshold of torture. It also submits that Mr. Douglas was
under constant threat of violence, with regular attempts to force him to confess to crimes and
to retract his complaints of torture.
82.
The Working Group is particularly concerned about the allegations of torture,
ill-treatment and attempts by the authorities to pressure Mr. Douglas to confess and retract
his complaints of torture, none of which have been refuted by the Government. Detainees
should be protected from any practices that violate their right to be free from any act that
could cause severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, and that are inflicted
intentionally. In accordance with article 2 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the right to freedom from torture and other
ill-treatment or punishment is absolute and non-derogable.13 In other words, it applies in all
circumstances and may never be restricted, including in times of war or during a state of
emergency. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including threats of terrorism or
12 Opinions No. 2/2023, para. 78; and No. 43/2023, paras. 42 and 43.
13 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 5.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
GE.25-15058
11
violent crime, may be invoked to justify torture or other ill-treatment. That prohibition applies
irrespective of the offence allegedly committed by the accused person.14
83.
The Working Group finds that the treatment described by the source as having been
inflicted upon Mr. Douglas reveals a prima facie breach of the absolute prohibition of torture,
which is a peremptory norm of international law and enshrined in article 5 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 of the Convention against Torture. It recalls that
torture is not only a grave violation of human rights per se but also undermines the ability to
defend oneself, thereby hindering the exercise of the right to a fair trial.15
84.
The Working Group notes that the use of confessions extracted through ill-treatment
that is tantamount, if not equivalent, to torture may constitute a violation of the State’s
obligations under article 15 of the Convention against Torture.16 Furthermore, principle 21
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment specifically prohibits taking undue advantage of the situation of a detained
person to compel him or her to confess or make incriminating statements. The Working
Group consequently concludes that the rights of Mr. Douglas to be presumed innocent and
not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and principle 21 of the Body of Principles have been violated.
85.
The Working Group is extremely concerned about the source’s claim that Mr. Douglas
was denied his heart medication for several months. It notes that he suffered several strokes
after his arrest.
86.
The Working Group recalls that every detainee has the right to the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.17 This right extends not only to timely and appropriate
healthcare but also to the underlying determinants of health, such as adequate food, water
and sanitation. Moreover, ill prisoners whose health conditions require treatment by a
specialist must be transferred to specialized institutions or civil hospitals, and denial of
medical care can constitute a form of torture or cruel or inhuman treatment.
87.
It is further recalled that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. The Nelson Mandela
Rules set a number of standards for providing healthcare in custody. In particular, rule 24
states that the provision of healthcare for prisoners is the responsibility of the State, and that
prisoners should enjoy the same standards of healthcare that are available in the community
and should have access to necessary healthcare services free of charge and without
discrimination on the grounds of their legal status.
88.
In the present case, the severity of the health issues described by the source, including
a heart condition for which medication was not received for several months, and the resulting
strokes are sufficient to lead the Working Group to conclude that the denial of medical care
to Mr. Douglas further contributed to undermining his ability to defend himself, thereby
hindering the exercise of his right to a fair trial.
89.
The source argues that Mr. Douglas’s fair trial rights have further been violated given
that the authorities disregarded their own expert forensic evidence. It contends, as a result,
that it was impossible for Mr. Douglas to challenge his detention before a truly independent
and unbiased judiciary.
90.
The Working Group reiterates that the right to be tried by a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal, as enshrined under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, is a core fair trial right. Although the Working Group has not been provided with
sufficient information on this issue to reach a definitive finding, it considers that the failure
to take into account what is described by the source as clearly exculpatory forensic evidence
could amount to a lack of judicial impartiality and objectivity in the court’s examination of
the evidence before it.
14 Opinion No. 42/2021, para. 76.
15 Opinions No. 92/2017, para. 56; No. 32/2019, para. 42; No. 59/2019, para. 69; No. 65/2022,
para. 117; and No. 32/2025, para. 103.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), paras. 6, 41 and 60.
17 Opinions No. 42/2021, para. 78; and No. 32/2025, para. 105.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
12
GE.25-15058
91.
As regards the right to counsel, the source claims that, by the time that Mr. Douglas
appeared for the first time before a judge, six months into his detention, he had not been
offered any State legal aid, despite having become completely financially destitute.
Moreover, the source claims that, after his arrest, he was able to communicate with his
lawyers only by telephone or through family members, and for no more than 10 minutes at a
time.
92.
According to principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, a detainee
should have effective access to counsel at the earliest appropriate time. The Working Group
considers that this principle is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms, as
enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It underlines that, in
accordance with principle 3 of the United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to
Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, States should ensure that anyone who is detained,
arrested or suspected of or charged with a criminal offence punishable by a term of
imprisonment or the death penalty is entitled to legal aid at all stages of the criminal justice
process.18 This principle was not respected in Mr. Douglas’s case.
93.
Moreover, the Working Group recalls that all persons charged with a criminal offence
must have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to
communicate with counsel of their own choosing, notably on the basis of principle 18 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. The significant restrictions on Mr. Douglas’s ability to communicate with
counsel, including the unrefuted submission that he was able to have only 10-minute calls
with his lawyers, leads the Working Group to conclude that his right to legal counsel was
violated and that he was exposed to a risk of coercion.
94.
The Working Group is further concerned that Mr. Douglas’s telephone
communications with his lawyers would not have guaranteed the confidentiality of their
discussions. It reiterates that respect for lawyer-client confidentiality is an important part of
defence rights. The right of a defendant to have private discussions with his or her counsel,
without surveillance, constitutes one of the fundamental aspects of a fair trial, in the absence
of which legal assistance significantly loses its purpose.19
95.
Lastly, the Working Group notes the source’s uncontested claim that the authorities
repeatedly intimidated Mr. Douglas into signing documents in Arabic, a language that he
does not understand, and interrogated him without the assistance of an interpreter, in breach
of principle 14 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment.
96.
For all the reasons set out above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of
Mr. Douglas’s rights to due process under articles 5, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights were of such gravity as to give his detention an arbitrary
character under category III.
(d)
Category V
97.
Regarding category V, the Working Group notes the source’s submission that
Mr. Douglas was victim of discrimination by the authorities because he neither was Muslim
nor spoke Arabic, and for his Roma ethnicity. The source also claims that his perceived
wealth made him a target for the authorities.
98.
The source’s submission with regard to his religion, lack of knowledge of Arabic and
financial situation are prima facie credible and have not been rebutted by the Government.
They appear to be corroborated by related allegations, notably the attempts to coerce
Mr. Douglas into signing documents in Arabic and to extort money from him at various
points. The Working Group is thus inclined to accept that Mr. Douglas’s detention was the
result of discrimination on the grounds of language, religion and economic condition. It
considers, however, that the source has not sufficiently substantiated its allegation of
discrimination based on belonging to the Roma community.
18 Opinion No. 53/2024, para. 92.
19 Ibid., para. 94.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
GE.25-15058
13
99.
The Working Group further considers that Mr. Douglas may have been targeted
because of his family links, specifically, the financial difficulties experienced by his family
member’s business. It reaffirms that, in a free and democratic society, no one should be
deprived of liberty for the actions of a family member.20
100.
The Working Group accordingly finds that Mr. Douglas was deprived of his liberty
on discriminatory grounds, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and that the deprivation of liberty falls under category V.
3.
Disposition
101.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Albert Douglas, being in contravention of articles 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary
and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
102.
The Working Group requests the Government of the United Arab Emirates to take the
steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Douglas without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
103.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Mr. Douglas an enforceable right to
compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
104.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Douglas and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
105.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
106.
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 compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Douglas;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Douglas’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
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;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
107.
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.
108.
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.
20 For instance, opinion No. 53/2023, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/59
14
GE.25-15058
109.
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.21
[Adopted on 29 August 2025]
21 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.