Opinion; Subjects: SAUDI ARABIA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-02085 (E) 270226 020326
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 77/2025 concerning Ahmed Ali al-Doush (Saudi Arabia)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 7 March 2025, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Ahmed Ali
al-Doush. The Government replied to the communication on 2 May 2025. 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).
* Miriam Estrada Castillo and Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
General Assembly
Distr.: General
2 March 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
2
GE.26-02085
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Ahmed Ali al-Doush was born on 17 January 1982 in the Sudan and is a citizen of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. His residence is in Manchester,
United Kingdom.
5.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush is not, and has not been, a political or human
rights activist, nor a critic or opponent of the Government of Saudi Arabia. Before his
detention, Mr. Al-Doush had never been arrested or detained.
(i)
Background
6.
According to the source, Mr. Al-Doush’s case is one among many in a
well-documented crackdown on the fundamental right to free expression in Saudi Arabia.
7.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush’s arrest is connected to a tweet that he posted
in 2018 on his personal account about the situation in a third country. Reportedly, his arrest
and subsequent detention is also connected to the authorities’ belief that Mr. Al-Doush is
allegedly connected to a known critic of the Government of Saudi Arabia. However, the
source notes, he is only socially connected to a family member of the critic.
(ii)
Arrest, detention and legal proceedings
8.
According to the source, on 20 August 2024, Mr. Al-Doush travelled from Cairo to
Riyadh. Upon arrival at King Khalid International Airport, he was held at passport control
for unknown reasons. His fingerprints were taken and, after a prolonged encounter with the
border security authorities, he was allowed to enter Saudi Arabia.
9.
The source submits that, on 31 August 2024, Mr. Al-Doush was arrested at King
Khalid International Airport, while he was attempting to return to the United Kingdom with
his family. At the terminal, following passport control and a fingerprint check, he was asked
to go to another counter. He was then taken to a separate room and eventually separated from
his relatives. At that point, he had not been informed of the reason for the delay. He was told
that the delay was due to an issue with his fingerprints. As the departure time approached,
Mr. Al-Doush and his relatives agreed that they would board the plane and he would follow
once the issue had been resolved.
10.
Reportedly, Mr. Al-Doush’s arrest and detention were only communicated to his
family after they contacted the Embassy of the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia in Riyadh,
which liaised with Saudi State Security to locate him. According to the source, the Saudi
authorities proceeded to visit a family member of Mr. Al-Doush in Saudi Arabia and
informed the relative that Mr. Al-Doush was in their custody, without disclosing his location
of detention.
11.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush’s family was left without any contact with him
for two and a half months after his arrest, with only one call to his family member two weeks
following his arrest, in which he confirmed that he was in detention. Reportedly, following
the flight, his family attempted to contact Mr. Al-Doush but his cell phone had been switched
off. Although his family inquired about his whereabouts with airport security and the police
in Saudi Arabia, the authorities claimed that they were not aware of his location.
Consequently, the source submits that Mr. Al-Doush was forcibly disappeared at that time.
12.
It is reported that Mr. Al-Doush was in solitary confinement for the first 33 days of
his detention. Thereafter, he was moved to Al-Ha’ir prison outside Riyadh and placed in a
shared cell. This prison is known for holding political prisoners.
13.
The source submits that two and a half months after his detention, on 17 November
2024, Mr. Al-Doush was allowed to briefly call his close family and was granted a consular
visit on 21 November 2024.
14.
The source reports that, although Mr. Al-Doush requested a lawyer, he was denied
legal representation. The lawyers in Saudi Arabia that have been approached about
representing him have displayed behaviour indicating a fear of taking on his case.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
3
15.
The source reports that, during his interrogation while in detention, Mr. Al-Doush was
asked about a deleted post made on social media in 2018, which referenced the situation in a
third country, and about his perceived association with a critic of the Government of Saudi
Arabia living in a third country. According to the source, Mr. Al-Doush only had a cordial
social relationship with the critic’s family member.
16.
During an interrogation, he was reportedly asked to sign a statement to the
Authentication Court indicating that the deleted post on social media was his. He denied any
connection to the critic of the Government of Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, during an
interrogation, an investigator stated that “if not for the [social media] activity, you would
have been home with your family by now”, allegedly confirming that his expressions on
social media formed the basis for his arrest and continued detention. Mr. Al-Doush’s social
media account has 37 followers and a history of only four posts total, which are reportedly
about the situation in a third country.
17.
Reportedly, representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom have inquired
as to whether Mr. Al-Doush was or would be charged and the basis for his detention, but they
have not been told.
18.
Between December 2024 and January 2025, communication with Mr. Al-Doush
reportedly became irregular and he was left incommunicado for two weeks.
19.
In the last week of January 2025, Mr. Al-Doush was brought without prior notice
before a judge and informed of the charges against him. He was reportedly charged with
using social media to spread fake, untrue and damaging news against the Government, in
connection with a deleted post from 2018. He was additionally charged with having a
relationship with an individual who was a “threat” to the Kingdom’s national security but the
individual was not identified.
20.
The source notes that Mr. Al-Doush does not have any documentation on these
charges to confirm them. Although it is not known which court he was brought to, the source
submits that, as the charges were brought under the anti-terrorism legislation, it is most likely
that the Specialized Criminal Court would adjudicate such a case.
21.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush was unrepresented during the hearing. During
the hearing, he was assigned a State-appointed lawyer, but he had no contact with the lawyer
at the time, the assignment was essentially on paper only. The first and only time
Mr. Al-Doush was able to meet with his State-appointed lawyer was later that week, through
a meeting held virtually.
22.
The source notes that it took time for Mr. Al-Doush’s family to communicate with his
State-appointed lawyer, who reportedly denied having knowledge of the appointment or of
Mr. Al-Doush. Moreover, the lawyer refused to speak to Mr. Al-Doush’s family about the
case.
23.
According to the source, a second hearing was scheduled for 3 February 2025.
However, this was postponed to 10 February and further postponed to 4 March 2025.
24.
On 4 March 2025, Mr. Al-Doush was taken to a second hearing. According to the
source, during the hearing, it was learned that the hearing was set to present evidence on the
charges and from the defence. In addition, it is reported that, now that the evidence has been
presented, the judge will deliberate and issue a judgment between 17 and 20 April 2025.
25.
The source reports that Mr. Al-Doush is currently being held at Al-Ha’ir prison in
Riyadh and that communication with his family is irregular. He had initially been receiving
thyroid medication, but it is not clear whether the appropriate dosage was being given. In
addition, he has a back condition that causes him persistent and severe pain and has missed
a scheduled operation with a back specialist. There is no information about whether he has
been able to see a specialist in detention.
(iii)
Legal analysis
26.
The source argues that the case of Mr. Al-Doush falls under categories II and III of
the Working Group.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
4
GE.26-02085
a.
Category II
27.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Doush was arrested in the context of an increased
crackdown against ordinary citizens who seek to freely voice their opinions.
28.
The source submits that following the publication of the Saudi law on anti-terrorism
and financing, in 2014, the State has used it to initiate legal proceedings against free
expression and association. These proceedings are generally prosecuted before the
Specialized Criminal Court.
29.
The source asserts that Mr. Al-Doush was arrested and detained based on his alleged
social media posts that discussed the situation in a third country and due to his perceived
association with a critic of the Government of Saudi Arabia, as noted by the need to submit
a signed statement to the Authentication Court indicating that the post of interest was his but
denying a connection to the critic of Saudi Arabia.
30.
The source further argues that, while Mr. Al-Doush has denied to the authorities any
association with the known critic, this perceived association forms the basis for the violations
of his right to free association.
31.
The source argues that this perceived association fits within the Working Group’s
former finding that any deprivation of liberty that results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed is in contravention of international law and confers an arbitrary
character on the detention.
32.
The source concludes that Mr. Al-Doush was deprived of his liberty because of the
exercise of his rights to freedom of opinion, expression and association, in violation of
articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, rendering his detention
arbitrary under category II.
b.
Category III
33.
The source recalls that detention is considered arbitrary under category III when the
detention is done in violation of fundamental fair trial rights and the right to an independent
and impartial tribunal.
i.
Information about Mr. Al-Doush’s arrest and location of detention
34.
The source argues that, while international law requires State authorities to have
immediately provided Mr. Al-Doush’s family with confirmation of his detention, as well as
his location of detention, and to have provided him with the ability to contact his family, the
Saudi authorities failed to fully guarantee these required protections.
ii.
Notification of reasons for arrest and the charges
35.
The source recalls that the Working Group has determined that in all circumstances,
deprivation of liberty must remain consistent with the norms of international law. 2 This
includes that the legal basis justifying the detention must be accessible, understandable,
non-retroactive and applied in a consistent and predictable way to everyone equally.3
36.
The source submits that, following Mr. Al-Doush’s detention, he had to wait
approximately five months to hear the charges against him and the reason for his arrest. He
became aware of the charges at his first trial hearing, on 27 January 2025. In addition, during
those five months, he was never formally charged with a crime. Upon hearing the charges, it
was not clear to him which actions and connections he was being investigated for.
37.
The source argues that, by holding Mr. Al-Doush in detention for five months without
informing him of the reason for his arrest, and only disclosing the charges in a way that raised
questions about what the charges could be referring to, the authorities have violated article 10
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rule 119 of the United Nations Standard
2 E/CN.4/2004/3, para. 84.
3 A/HRC/22/44, para. 62.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
5
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). The source
concludes that Mr. Al-Doush’s detention is legally baseless and arbitrary under category III.
iii.
Incommunicado detention and solitary confinement
38.
The source recalls that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects against
interference in a detainee’s privacy, family, home or correspondence under article 12.
Rule 68 of the Nelson Mandela Rules sets out that an individual must be able to contact
family to inform them of their arrest, transfer and any serious injury. Anyone who has been
arrested has a right to contact his relatives under article 14 of the Arab Charter on Human
Rights.
39.
The source submits that the Nelson Mandela Rules also establish that indefinite and
prolonged solitary confinement are to be prohibited under rule 43 thereof, and grounded also
in rule 3, which indicates that solitary or incommunicado detention imposed without
justification and necessity aggravate the suffering inherent to detention.
40.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Doush was prevented from contacting relatives and
others for the first two and a half months of his detention, with one brief exception. Moreover,
even though he was then able to hold weekly 5- to 15-minute calls, for several weeks, his
communication was again restricted when he reportedly asked about other prisoners during
a call with his family member. In addition, Mr. Al-Doush’s location of detention was not
given to his family, and he was held in solitary confinement for the first 33 days following
his arrest.
iv.
Consular access
41.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush had to wait two and a half months following
his arrest to be able to have his first consular communication and visit on 21 November 2024.
The Government of the United Kingdom informed Mr. Al-Doush’s family that they would
request a second visit, but that it would take several months to process and be organized.
42.
According to the source, beyond prison visits, neither the Embassy of the United
Kingdom to Saudia Arabia in Riyadh or any other representative of the Government of the
United Kingdom have been able to speak to Mr. Al-Doush. The severe delay in providing
Mr. Al-Doush with consular access, and the effective restriction of access by the Government
of the United Kingdom to the visit on 21 November 2024, has resulted in the denial of an
important tool for monitoring and preserving the rights necessary to ensuring that he received
a fair trial.
v.
Assistance of legal representation
43.
The source recalls that Mr. Al-Doush was denied access to a lawyer during his pretrial
detention. After his first hearing, he was assigned a lawyer with whom he has been able to
communicate once, only one week after his first hearing. Domestic lawyers have reportedly
refused to represent him, claiming that representation was not possible in pretrial detention,
as he had not been charged. The source submits that the authorities have denied his right to
a fair trial and right to a lawyer, in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, domestic Saudi law and rules 61, 93, 119 and 120 of the Nelson Mandela
Rules. The source concludes that the detention is arbitrary under category III.
vi.
Interrogation without a lawyer and potentially unsafe admission
44.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush has been repeatedly interrogated without the
assistance of legal representation. He has been questioned about his social media activity and
the contents of his deleted posts from 2018, which raised the situation of a third country, and
about his perceived association with a critic of the Government of Saudi Arabia.
45.
In addition, Mr. Al-Doush was reportedly asked to sign a statement to the
Authentication Court indicating that the post of interest was his but denying a connection to
the critic of the Government. The source notes that no lawyer was present and that
Mr. Al-Doush had no legal representation to fully advise him of the law, procedure and
repercussions of signing that statement.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
6
GE.26-02085
46.
Under these circumstances, the source argues that the authorities have violated
article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, rendering his detention arbitrary under category III.
vii.
Independent and impartial tribunal
47.
The source submits that, under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, those accused have a right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal. In addition, under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, individuals have the right to challenge and seek remedy against a violation of rights.
Article 14 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights ensures the right to be brought promptly
before a judge to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest and detention.
48.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Doush was denied access to a judge to challenge the
circumstances of his detention for the first five months of detention. He has also not been
able to appeal the charges, due to intermittent contact with his legal representation. Similarly,
he could not make any representations challenging his continued detention, the solitary
confinement or any violations of his rights during the arrest, detention or interrogations, nor
could he make any complaint about the violations of his rights to any other adjudicatory body
or authority.
49.
The source submits that the Specialized Criminal Court was created in 2008 to address
serious terrorist activities but has increasingly been used to target and prosecute individuals
expressing opinions or criticisms and activists whose views differ from those of the
Government.
50.
The source recalls that the Working Group has found that the Specialized Criminal
Court in Saudi Arabia suffers from undue influence by the executive and has been used to
prosecute peaceful critics on terrorism charges.4 Furthermore, it has determined that the
Specialized Criminal Court is not an impartial or independent body.5
51.
The source recalls that previous cases similar to that of Mr. Al-Doush have been
consistently prosecuted in the Specialized Criminal Court. It also recalls that the Working
Group has determined that this court is not sufficiently independent from the Ministry of the
Interior and has issued death penalties following unfair trials. In this context, the source
asserts that the authorities have violated articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 14 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, rendering
Mr. Al-Doush’s detention arbitrary under category III.
viii.
Right to health
52.
The source submits that article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provides for the right to adequate standards of living, and rules 24 to 35 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules set out principles for the adequate provision of healthcare to detained
individuals. The source recalls that the Working Group has found that essential medical
services must be provided to guard against the cruel or degrading treatment of detained
persons.6
53.
The source argues that essential thyroid medicine has not been adequately given to
Mr. Al-Doush and that he has not been adequately assessed since his arrest to determine the
required dose. Moreover, the source alleges that his medicine has been withheld as
punishment. Furthermore, the fact that he has missed surgery for his back pain has possibly
affected his health. Therefore, the source asserts that authorities have violated
Mr. Al-Doush’s right to health under article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and rules 24 to 35 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, making the detention arbitrary under
category III.
4 Opinion No. 27/2023, para. 43.
5 Opinion No. 10/2024, para. 117.
6 See www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Health/UNGASS-
joint_OL_HR_mechanisms_April2016.pdf; and A/68/295.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
7
ix.
Right against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment
54.
The source argues that various events since Mr. Al-Doush’s arrest have had a
cumulative effect on his welfare. He was held incommunicado and in solitary confinement,
causing him severe psychological effects. He also faced pressure and stress for over five
months due to the lack of any formal notification for the reasons for his arrest and detention.
In addition, he was repeatedly interrogated without a lawyer and without knowledge of the
law. He was denied any legal representation and forced to navigate the reality of his detention
and potential legal proceedings without any information or assistance.
55.
The source argues that this, in addition to Mr. Al-Doush’s medical condition, has
caused him to face cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, aggravating violations against
his right to a fair trial, in violation of articles 5 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, article 8 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and rule 1 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules, marking it an arbitrary detention under category III.
(b)
Response from the Government
56.
The Government of Saudi Arabia provided its reply to the Working Group in a letter
dated 2 May 2025.
57.
The Government indicated that the information from the source included false
allegations without any basis or proof and informed the Working Group that it was
investigating the allegations.
(i)
Arrest, investigation and trial procedures in the case of Mr. Al-Doush and the rights
guaranteed by national law
58.
The Government asserts that there was evidence proving that Mr. Al-Doush had
committed terrorist crimes, including his support for terrorist ideology, his meeting with
supporters and followers of terrorist ideology his use of the information network to commit
terrorist crimes and promote terrorist ideology, punishable under articles 34 and 43 of the
Anti-Terrorism Crimes and Financing Law.
59.
The Government affirms that the competent authority issued an arrest warrant against
Mr. Al-Doush, as the crime for which he is detained is considered a major crime that requires
detention. He was detained in the General Investigation Prison in Riyadh (Al-Ha’ir), and he
has the right to object to the legality of his detention, in accordance with the law.
60.
The Government affirms that Mr. Al-Doush was immediately informed on the same
day he was arrested, on 30 August 2024, of the reasons for his arrest and detention and of his
legal rights. His signature was obtained to confirm his knowledge thereof, which included
the right to seek the assistance of a lawyer to defend him during the investigation and trial
stages, in accordance with article 4 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was informed
of the charges against him and of his right to contact whomever he sees fit to inform of his
arrest or detention, in accordance with articles 36 (1), 101 (1) and 116 of the Code and
article 22 of the executive regulations of the same law.
61.
The Government notes that the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Riyadh was
informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time of the arrest and detention of
Mr. Al-Doush, including of the reasons for his detention. He was enabled to obtain consular
assistance in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom and in line with the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. Representatives of the Embassy of the United Kingdom
visited him at his place of detention on 21 November 2024.
62.
The Government asserts that, after the investigation procedures were completed, the
public prosecution referred the case to the Specialized Criminal Court, the competent court.
Mr. Al-Doush was charged on the basis of sufficient evidence, including his confessions
before the judiciary, arrest and search records and technical reports. He was ordered to appear
before the court, in accordance with article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
63.
The Government notes that Mr. Al-Doush was given the right to appoint a lawyer or
an agent to defend him and plead his case on his behalf. He was informed that, if he did not
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
8
GE.26-02085
have the financial ability to hire a lawyer, he had the right to request that a lawyer of his
choice be appointed to defend and plead on his behalf at the State’s expense, in accordance
with article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
64.
The Government affirms that Mr. Al-Doush requested to appoint a lawyer of his
choice at the State’s expense and appointed the lawyer Ibrahim Al-Moussa. They both
attended his trial session in the presence of the public prosecutor and a representative from
the Human Rights Commission. The public prosecutor’s case was read to Mr. Al-Doush and
he was given a copy, in accordance with article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
65.
The Government asserts that Mr. Al-Doush’s trial sessions are ongoing and that his
case is still under judicial consideration. Mr. Al-Doush is attending his trial sessions. He
stated before the court that he was fluent in Arabic and that he did not need an interpreter.
66.
The Government notes that Mr. Al-Doush is detained in the General Investigation
Prison in Riyadh (Al-Ha’ir). He enjoys the right to periodic visits and contact and has enjoyed
numerous visits and made numerous calls. He has received the necessary medical care from
the date of his arrest, enjoys good health and does not suffer from any health problems.
67.
The Government affirms that the right to object to the legality of the arrest or detention
is guaranteed to every detained person, in accordance with article 115 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The public prosecution is an independent body, in accordance with the Public
Prosecution Law.
68.
The Government asserts that the public prosecution presented evidence proving that
Mr. Al-Doush committed a number of crimes, including what was stated in the arrest and
search records and technical reports, what was stated in the statements and what was stated
in Mr. Al-Doush’s confessions before the court. He confessed, of his own free will, before
the investigating authority and admitted to the charges against him before the court, in
accordance with article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Government affirms that
no one is detained in the Kingdom for exercising their rights and freedoms.
69.
The Government affirms that the judicial ruling issued against Mr. Al-Doush is
subject to judicial review before higher courts.
70.
The Government notes that all of the Kingdom’s laws are formulated with sufficient
precision and clarity and are published on government websites and elsewhere and that
anyone can access them and regulate their behaviour within their framework. The
Anti-Terrorism Crimes and Financing Law clearly defines terrorist crimes and the crime of
financing terrorism and the procedures to be followed in this regard. The Government affirms
that the principle of legal certainty is one of the fundamental criteria upon which the legislator
in the Kingdom bases criminal legal texts, including the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism
Crimes and Financing Law.
71.
The Government notes that the Human Rights Commission followed up on
Mr. Al-Doush’s case and found that the measures taken against him were sound. It confirmed
the implementation of the applicable human rights laws and regulations and that none of
those laws were violated. The Commission continues to follow up on his case.
(ii)
Response to the claims of the source regarding the case of Mr. Al-Doush
72.
The Government denies the source’s allegation that Mr. Al-Doush’s case constitutes
an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under categories II and III of the Working Group.
73.
The Government refutes that Mr. Al-Doush’s deprivation is an arbitrary measure
resulting from his exercise of the rights under articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and his association with a well-known critic of the Kingdom.
74.
The Government asserts that the crimes for which Mr. Al-Doush was convicted are
terrorist crimes under the law, including his support for terrorist ideology and his meeting
with its supporters, and that his use of the information network to commit terrorist crimes
and promote terrorist ideology is punishable by articles 34 and 43 of the Anti-Terrorism
Crimes and Financing Law.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
9
75.
In the light of the above, the Government asserts that there is no violation committed
against Mr. Al-Doush that falls under category II.
76.
The Government refutes the source’s allegation that the authorities refused to disclose
the whereabouts of Mr. Al-Doush to his family, prevented him from contacting them and
refused to inform him of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him. The
Government affirms that he was immediately informed on the same day he was arrested,
30 August 2024, of the reasons and charges for his arrest and detention and of his legal rights.
His signature was obtained to confirm his knowledge thereof, which included the right to
seek the assistance of an agent or lawyer to defend him during the investigation and trial
stages. He was also informed of his right to contact whomever he sees fit to inform him of
his arrest or detention.
77.
The Government affirms that Mr. Al-Doush was detained by the competent authority,
while he enjoyed the right to object to the legality of his detention in accordance with the law.
His family has been aware of his place of detention since his arrest, and representatives of
the Embassy of the United Kingdom visited him at his place of detention on 21 November
2024.
78.
The Government notes that, after completing the investigation procedures, the public
prosecution deemed the evidence sufficient, charged Mr. Al-Doush and referred his case to
the Specialized Criminal Court.
79.
The Government asserts that Mr. Al-Doush was investigated while in detention
because the terrorist crimes that he is accused of are among the major crimes that warrant
detention and that the period of his detention during the investigation was in accordance with
the law. He has been able to exercise his right to challenge the legality of his detention since
the date of issuance of an arrest warrant against him.
80.
The Government denies the allegations that Mr. Al-Doush was subjected to
incommunicado detention, prolonged solitary confinement and restricted contact with his
family. The Government affirms that he is detained in the General Investigation Prison in
Riyadh (Al-Ha’ir) in the group wing. On the date of his arrest and detention, on 30 August
2024, Mr. Al-Doush was given the right to contact whomever he saw fit to inform them of
his arrest and, since then, he has enjoyed the right to visit and communicate. The Government
affirms that the Anti-Terrorism Crimes and Financing Law grants the investigating authority
the right to prevent the accused from contacting others for a specified period when
exceptional necessities of the investigation so require, without prejudice to the accused’s
right to contact his family or legal representative.
81.
The Government denies the restriction of Mr. Al-Doush’s contacts with his family
and affirms that he enjoys his right to continuous and periodic visits and contact, like other
detainees and prisoners. He has enjoyed numerous visits, including from representatives of
the Embassy of the United Kingdom, and has made contacted numerous people.
82.
The Government concludes that the measures against Mr. Al-Doush are consistent
with international standards, including articles 3, 6 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, article 14 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights and rules 43, 58 and 68 of
the Nelson Mandela Rules.
83.
The Government refutes the allegations that consular access by the Government of
the United Kingdom to Mr. Al-Doush is restricted. The Government affirms that the Embassy
of the United Kingdom in Riyadh was informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the
time of Mr. Al-Doush’s arrest and detention of the reasons for his detention and that he was
enabled to obtain consular assistance in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom and the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Representatives from the Embassy visited him on
21 November 2024. The competent authorities demonstrated full cooperation with the
Embassy and provided it with all necessary information. The competent authorities did not
receive any complaint from the Embassy indicating that it had been prevented from or
restricted in its communication with Mr. Al-Doush.
84.
The Government denies the allegations that Mr. Al-Doush was prevented from
gaining access to a lawyer on a regular basis and that he was interrogated without legal
assistance. The Government affirms that Mr. Al-Doush was immediately informed, on the
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
10
GE.26-02085
same day he was arrested, of his legal rights, which include the right to seek legal assistance.
His signature was obtained as a confirmation of his knowledge of this. He requested that a
lawyer of his choice be appointed at the State’s expense to defend him and plead his case on
his behalf. His request was granted, and he was enabled to meet with the lawyer on an
ongoing basis at the place of his detention. The necessary facilities and sufficient time were
provided to his lawyer, and he was able to prepare the necessary memorandum to defend
Mr. Al-Doush and submit it to the court.
85.
The Government notes that Mr. Al-Doush and his legal representative attended the
trial sessions in the presence of the public prosecutor and a representative of the Human
Rights Commission. The public prosecutor’s lawsuit was read to him, and he was given a
copy of it, as stipulated by article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The public
prosecution presented evidence proving that Mr. Al-Doush committed a number of crimes,
which included what was indicated in the arrest and search records and technical reports, in
the statements and in his confessions before the court, where Mr. Al-Doush confessed of his
own free will before the investigating authority and admitted to the charges against him
before the court, while he was in full legal capacity.
86.
The Government refutes the allegations that Mr. Al-Doush was not brought before a
judge upon his arrest, as well as the allegations regarding the independence of the Specialized
Criminal Court. The Government denies that he was prevented from exercising his right to
object to the legality of his arrest.
87.
The Government notes that the Specialized Criminal Court was established to
consider national security and terrorism cases. The legal framework within which the Court
operates aligns with international standards. Mr. Al-Doush’s case is being heard by an
independent and impartial court, in a fair and public trial.
88.
The Government denies that Mr. Al-Doush was deprived of healthcare and the
necessary medication as punishment for the questions that he asked his family. The
Government asserts that he enjoys good health and has received the necessary medical care
since the date of his arrest. He also underwent a medical examination immediately upon his
admission to the general prison.
89.
The Government notes that no penalties were imposed on Mr. Al-Doush, whether by
depriving him of medical care or otherwise related to his contact with his family or others.
The Government asserts that the measures taken in the present case are consistent with
international standards, including article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and rules 24 to 35 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
90.
The Government denies the allegations that Mr. Al-Doush was subjected to torture
and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Government asserts that he has been treated
well in a manner that preserves his dignity and guarantees all his rights.
91.
The Government adds that Mr. Al-Doush was allowed to meet with his lawyer on a
regular basis, to speak with him and provide him with advice at the place of his detention and
that the necessary facilities and sufficient time were provided to the lawyer to enable him to
prepare the necessary memorandum to defend him.
92.
In the light of the above, the Government notes that there was no violation in
Mr. Al-Doush’s case that falls under category III.
93.
Regarding the Working Group’s call to ensure the physical and mental integrity of
Mr. Al-Doush, the Government reiterates that he enjoys good health and has received the
necessary medical care since the date of his arrest. In the prison where he is detained, there
is a fully equipped hospital with all medical specialties.
94.
The Government concludes that the procedures taken in Mr. Al-Doush’s case are in
accordance with international standards and with the Kingdom’s international obligations.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
95.
On 12 June 2025, the source provided further comments in response to the
Government’s reply. In those further comments, the source argues that the Government
responded by merely denying the allegations of rights violations as “false” or “incorrect”,
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
11
while failing to provide specific information about Mr. Al-Doush’s treatment to support its
denial of the allegations or to demonstrate that he had been afforded the procedural
guarantees mentioned. The source then disputes specific contentions in the Government reply.
The source informs the Working Group that Mr. Al-Doush was convicted on 12 May 2025
by the Specialized Criminal Court and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, although neither
his family nor the Government of the United Kingdom have been given access to the charges,
underlying evidence or any court documents, including the judgment.
96.
The source notified the Working Group about a preliminary appeal hearing that took
place on 23 June 2025, during which a judge reportedly confirmed the conviction and reduced
the sentence to eight years’ imprisonment, but no documentation or explanation for this
change has been provided, and the State-appointed lawyer refused to share any information.
Another appeal hearing was held on 2 October 2025, at which an appeal judgment was issued;
however, it remains unclear whether the original or revised sentence was upheld or whether
the sentence may have been reduced further, possibly to five years’ imprisonment. The source
informed the Working Group about Mr. Al-Doush undertaking a hunger strike, his continued
punishments for communications with his family and the Government’s continued refusal to
provide any details on the case documents, including the trial judgment and appeal decision.
2.
Discussion
97.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. Al-Doush is arbitrary, the Working Group
has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If
the source has presented a prima facie case of breach of the international law constituting
arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if
it wishes to refute the allegations.7
(a)
Category I
98.
Although the source has not characterized them under this category, the Working
Group will first consider whether the allegations could amount to violations under category I,
which concerns deprivation of liberty without legal basis.
99.
The source argues that, from his arrest on 31 August 2024 until his first appearance
before a judge on 27 January 2025, Mr. Al-Doush was not told of the reasons for his arrest
nor the nature of the charges against him. The source submits that, by holding Mr. Al-Doush
in detention for five months without informing him of the reason for his arrest, the Saudi
authorities have violated article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
rule 119 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Government disputes these allegations, arguing
that he was immediately informed of the reason for his arrest.
100.
The Working Group notes that persons who are detained have the right to be promptly
informed of the charges against them. This is inherent in article 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, as well as principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group has
previously stated that, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not
sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke that
legal basis,8 which is typically done through an arrest warrant or equivalent. 9 It is also
inherent in articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that an arrested
person should be informed of the nature of the charges against them.
101.
The Working Group has reviewed the submissions of the source and the Government
carefully. It notes the diverging accounts of the arrest, including the date of the arrest. Given
the high level of detail regarding the location and sequence of events set out in the source’s
submissions, and the lack of detail in the Government’s submissions, the Working Group
considers that Mr. Al-Doush was not sufficiently informed of the reasons for his arrest in a
prompt manner. There is no indication that it was a situation of flagrante delicto. The
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
8 Opinions No. 71/2024, para. 106; and No. 5/2025, para. 85.
9 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
12
GE.26-02085
Working Group therefore finds a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, as well as principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles.
102.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Doush was not brought before a judge until 27 January
2025, which was around five months after his arrest. The Government notes in response to
this that he had the right to lodge a challenge on this basis.
103.
Under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 11, 32
and 37 of the Body of Principles, detainees have the right to promptly take proceedings before
a court to challenge the legality of their detention.10 Judicial oversight of detention is a
fundamental safeguard of personal liberty.11
104.
Given the lack of any reasonable justification provided by the Government for the
five-month delay in bringing Mr. Al-Doush before a judge, the Working Group considers
that he was denied the right to promptly take proceedings before a court, in violation of
article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 11, 32 and 37 of the
Body of Principles.12
105.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Doush was prevented from contacting relatives and
others for the first two and a half months of his detention, other than one brief telephone call.
Moreover, the source claims that he was held in solitary confinement for the first 33 days
following his arrest and that his location was not provided to his family. The Government
replies that he was given the right to contact whomever he saw fit to inform them of his arrest
and that there is no truth to the restriction on his contact with his family. The Government
contends that exceptional reasons justified the measures it applied, particularly due to the
terrorism charges.
106.
The Working Group recalls its jurisprudence in which it has consistently held that
holding a person incommunicado can violate his or her right to challenge the lawfulness of
the detention (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 8). 13 Prohibitions against
incommunicado detention are also included in principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles
and rules 43 (3), 58 and 68 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
107.
Given the lack of information provided by the Government, the Working Group
considers that the source has established that Mr. Al-Doush was held incommunicado. It does
not consider that sufficient justification has been given for this extended restriction. It
considers that this violated his rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the Nelson Mandela Rules and that this exacerbated the violations of his rights described in
the present case. This incommunicado detention, which also has been shown to qualify as
enforced disappearance,14 exacerbated the violation of his rights under article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
108.
On the preceding bases, Mr. Al-Doush’s detention was arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
109.
The source argues that Mr. Al-Doush’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under
category II as it results from violations of articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The source asserts that Mr. Al-Doush was arrested and detained allegedly
on the basis of his social media posts, in which he discussed the situation in a third country,
and due to his perceived association with a critic of the Government of Saudi Arabia, in the
context of broader pattern of arrests for social media posts and messages. The Government
refutes these allegations and submits that the crimes for which Mr. Al-Doush was convicted
are terrorist crimes criminalized under the law, including his support for terrorist ideology
and his meeting with its supporters and followers.
10 Opinion No. 33/2020, para. 56.
11 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
12 Opinion No. 33/2020, para. 56.
13 Opinions No. 53/2016, No. 56/2016 and No. 10/2017.
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 17;
and Working Group opinions No. 5/2020, para. 74; and No. 40/2024, para. 154.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
13
110.
The Working Group notes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects
the rights to the freedoms of thought, conscience and religion, expression and peaceful
assembly and association.
111.
Having considered the submissions, the Working Group is satisfied with the evidence
that Mr. Al-Doush’s detention arose due to his social media posts and his perceived
association with a known critic of the Government of Saudi Arabia and that they form the
bases for his arrest and continued detention. The Government has not provided detailed or
substantiated information indicating why Mr. Al-Doush presented a violent threat to the
community through his actions such that detention was strictly necessary. The Working
Group considers that posting on social media and supposedly being associated with an
allegedly problematic person would rarely, if ever, be sufficient to justify incarceration.
Accordingly, his detention is in violation of articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
(c)
Category III
112. Given the Working Group’s finding under category II, no trial should have taken place.
Given that the trial nevertheless took place, the Working Group will now proceed to consider
whether the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are substantiated and
were grave enough to give Mr. Al-Doush’s deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, such
that it falls within category III.
113.
The source indicated that Mr. Al-Doush was denied access to a lawyer during his
pretrial detention. The Government refutes this, arguing that he was given the right to appoint
a lawyer or an agent to defend and plead his case on his behalf, and informed the Working
Group that, if he did not have the financial ability to hire a lawyer, he had the right to request
a State-appointed lawyer; based on his request, he appointed a lawyer, who the Government
names, who attended his trial session in the presence of the public prosecutor and a
representative from the Human Rights Commission.
114.
As the Working Group has previously observed, all persons deprived of their liberty
have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention,
including immediately after their apprehension, and such access must be provided without
delay.15 This is implicit in article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is
also reflected in principles 15, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles.
115.
Based on the submissions, the Working Group is struck by the fact that
Mr. Al-Doush’s lawyer was only appointed in January 2025, over four months after his arrest.
The Government has not provided a sufficient reason for this delayed provision of a lawyer.
Moreover, Mr. Al-Doush was repeatedly interrogated without a lawyer present. On this basis,
the Government violated his rights under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
116.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush had to wait two and a half months following
his arrest to be able to have his first consular visit, which took place on 21 November 2024,
and that this was the first time that the Government of the United Kingdom was able to
communicate with him. The Government of Saudi Arabia responds that the United Kingdom
was informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time of his arrest and detention of the
reasons for his detention and that it did not receive any complaint from the Embassy of the
United Kingdom indicating that it had been prevented from or was restricted in its
communication with Mr. Al-Doush.
117.
The Working Group notes that consular assistance or consular protection constitutes
an important safeguard for individuals who are arrested and detained in a foreign State.16
Consular assistance, under article 36 (1) (b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
can assist in upholding the rights to due process and to a fair trial under articles 10 and 11 (1)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
15 A/HRC/30/37, principle 9 and guideline 8; CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, paras. 14 and 15; and opinions
No. 32/2013, para. 24; 63/2017, para. 70; 93/2017, para. 52; and No. 86/2020, para. 78.
16 Opinions No. 34/2018 and No. 84/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
14
GE.26-02085
118.
Having reviewed the submissions, the Working Group is not satisfied that the right to
consular assistance was respected in the present case. Both the source and the Government
agree that the visit to Mr. Al-Doush by the consular officials of the United Kingdom occurred
on 21 November 2024, over two months after his arrest in August 2024. No sufficient reason
has been given for this delay, nor for the subsequent blockages in access to consular
assistance outlined in the source’s submissions. This has had the effect of prejudicing
Mr. Al-Doush’s fair trial rights and depriving him of an important tool for monitoring and
preserving the rights necessary to ensure that he received a fair trial.
119.
The source submits that Mr. Al-Doush has been denied the right to a fair and public
hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. The source notes that the
Specialized Criminal Court, created in 2008 to address serious terrorist activities, has
increasingly been used to target and prosecute individuals expressing opinions or criticisms
and activists whose views differ from those of the Government. The Government, for its part,
submits that the Specialized Criminal Court is an independent and impartial court and that
Mr. Al-Doush is receiving a fair and public trial.
120.
The Working Group recalls that article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights guarantees a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. 17 It also recalls 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 and its own prior concerns regarding courts lacking
structural independence.18
121.
In the present case, noting the unrefuted submission that the Specialized Criminal
Court is under the influence of the Ministry of the Interior and the unexplained delays in
granting Mr. Al-Doush access to a lawyer and a first hearing before a judge, the Working
Group concludes that he was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, contrary to
article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group recalls its
findings in previous cases that the Specialized Criminal Court does not provide independent
justice.19 It notes that the Committee against Torture has expressed its concern about the
independence of the Specialized Criminal Court, observing that it has declined to investigate
claims that defendants were subjected to torture or ill-treatment during interrogations aimed
at extracting a confession for terrorist offences.20
122.
The source argues that the preceding violations, including the fact that Mr. Al-Doush
was held incommunicado and in solitary confinement and repeatedly interrogated without a
lawyer, have caused him severe psychological effects and thereby aggravate the violations
against his right to a fair trial, in violation of articles 5 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, article 8 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, the Convention against
Torture and rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Government replied that he had been
treated well, in a manner that preserved his dignity and guaranteed all his rights, since the
date of his arrest. The Government adds that he has not been subjected to torture or
ill-treatment, has access to legal assistance and his health is sound and stable. Given that no
free-standing violation is alleged, the Working Group does not consider it necessary to
separately address these allegations other than to note the multiplicity of violations which
does indicate the gravity of his mistreatment.
123. For the reasons detailed above, and noting the multiple violations of his fair trial rights,
the Working Group concludes that the breaches of the fair trial and due process rights of
Mr. Al-Doush are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character,
falling within category III.
(d)
Concluding remarks
124.
The Working Group notes the source’s submissions that Mr. Al-Doush’s right to
health has been violated, and it reminds the Government that poor health or conditions may
17 Opinions No. 79/2017, para. 55; and No. 8/2019, para. 55.
18 Opinions No. 21/2017, para. 40; and No. 63/2017, para. 55.
19 Opinions No. 26/2019, paras. 102 and 119; No. 27/2023, para. 43; and No. 10/2024, para. 117.
20 CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
GE.26-02085
15
compromise a detainee’s ability to participate in judicial proceedings, in violation of
article 10 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights,21 as well as principle 24 of the Body of
Principles and article 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
125.
In its history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of its
international human rights obligations in more than 75 cases.22 The Working Group reiterates
its concern that this might indicate a widespread or systemic problem of arbitrary detention
in Saudi Arabia, which amounts to a serious violation of international law. The Working
Group stresses that States have the obligation not to engage in acts that could constitute
crimes against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed. The Working
Group recalls that, under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or
other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international law may constitute
crimes against humanity.23
3.
Disposition
126.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Ahmed Ali al-Doush, being in contravention of
articles 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I, II and III.
127.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Al-Doush without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
128.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Al-Doush immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
129.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Al-Doush and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
130.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
131.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Al-Doush has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Al-Doush;
21 Opinions No. 46/2014, para. 37; No. 29/2017, para. 63; No. 59/2019, para. 69; and No. 31/2022,
para. 99.
22 Decisions No. 40/1992 and No. 48/1995; and opinions No. 25/2004, No. 34/2005, No. 9/2006,
No. 4/2007, No. 6/2008, No. 21/2009, No. 11/2011, No. 8/2012, No. 32/2013, No. 32/2014,
No. 52/2016, No. 10/2017, No. 68/2018, No.56/2019, No. 33/2020, No. 34/2021, No. 8/2022,
No. 29/2022, No. 17/2023, No. 26/2023, No. 27/2023, No. 10/2024, No. 26/2024 and No. 71/2024.
23 A/HRC/13/42, para. 30; and opinions No. 1/2011, para. 21; No. 37/2011, para. 15; No. 38/2011,
para. 16; No. 39/2011, para. 17; No. 4/2012, para. 26; No. 38/2012, para. 33; No. 47/2012, paras. 19
and 22; No. 50/2012, para. 27; No. 60/2012, para. 21; No. 9/2013, para. 40; No. 34/2013, paras. 31,
33 and 35; No. 35/2013, paras. 33, 35 and 37; No. 36/2013, paras. 32, 34 and 36; No. 48/2013,
para. 14; No. 22/2014, para. 25; No. 27/2014, para. 32; No. 34/2014, para. 34; No. 35/2014, para. 19;
No. 44/2016, para. 37; No. 60/2016, para. 27; No. 32/2017, para. 40; No. 33/2017, para. 102;
No. 36/2017, para. 110; No. 51/2017, para. 57; and No. 56/2017, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/77
16
GE.26-02085
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Al-Doush’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Saudi Arabia with its international obligations in line
with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
132.
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.
133.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
134.
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.24
[Adopted on 14 November 2025]
24 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.