The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of the United Arab Emirates to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No.19/2023 concerning Omran Ali Hasan al-Radwan alHarithi, Abdullah Abdulqader Ahmad Ali al-Hajiri, Ahmed Yousef Abdullah al-Zaabi, Mohammed Abdulrazzaq Mohammed al-Siddiq, Husain Moneif al-Jabri, Hasan Moneif al-Jabri, Sultan Bin Kayed Mohammed al-Qasimi, Khalifa Hilal Khalifa Hilal al-Nuaimi, Ibrahim Ismail Ibrahim al-Yasi, Mohammed Abdullah al-Roken, Abdulsalam Mohammed Darwish al-Marzooqi and Fouad Mohammed Abdullah Hasan al-Hmadi, starting for the Government of the United Arab Emirates to immediately release the 12 individuals and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WDAG Opinion concerning these individuals (United Arab Emirates): Opinion No. 19/2023.
UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED AND INDEFINITELY DETAINED WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS
In March 2011, a group of 133 Emirati academics, judges, lawyers, students, and human rights defenders signed a petition calling for democratic reforms. The Emirati Government allegedly initiated a campaign of arrests against the signatories among which the 12 individuals in the present case, who were arrested in 2012 and received prison sentences ranging from seven to ten years. Subsequently, a law allowing detention of individuals in munasaha centers on the basis that they pose a terrorism threat was enacted, and further expanded in 2019 to allow continued detention post-sentence for rehabilitation purposes, with few avenues for challenge. Despite serving their seven to ten-year prison sentences, a court decided to keep the 12 individuals detained under the munasaha regime.
When the Working Group rendered its opinion, the 12 individuals were detained under the Counter-Terrorism Law (2014) and the Munasaha Centre Law (2019), despite being convicted in 2013. The Working Group recalled that under article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights individuals cannot be charged or punished for actions that were not considered illegal under the law at the time those actions were taken. Accordingly, the Working Group found that this violated the principle of non-retroactive application of the law in criminal cases.
The Working Group also recalled that laws that are vaguely and broadly worded may have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression, as they may violate the principle of legality under article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group determined that article 40 (1) of the Counter-Terrorism Law did not align with the principle of legality, given its utilization of a circular definition and broad terms. On that basis, the Working Group considered that the Counter-Terrorism Law was in violation of article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In addition, according to unrefuted allegations, the 12 individuals were kept in detention after completion of their sentences. The Working Group noted that a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category I when it is impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty, such as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence. The detention of the 12 individuals therefore lacked a valid legal basis and was in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Consequently, the Working Group concluded that their detention was arbitrary under Category I.
PERSECUTED AS A RESULT OF THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS
The Working Group noted that under article 19 of the Universal Declaration, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including political discourse, commentary on public affairs, discussion of human rights and journalism. The Working Group expressed concern that anti-terrorism laws using overly broad definitions of terrorism may lead to the unjust detention of innocent individuals and suspects, raising the likelihood of arbitrary detention.
In addition, the Working Group found no evidence that the 12 individuals would pose a threat to national security, public order, public health or morals, if released at the time of completion of their sentences. Accordingly, the Working Group considered that the 12 individuals were kept in detention because of the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rendering the deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category II.
The Working Group noted that the activities of the 12 individuals as peaceful critics led to their arrests and detention. The Working Group recalled its jurisprudence according to which when detention results from the exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other views. Accordingly, the Working Group found that the 12 individuals have been detained on discriminatory grounds, owing to their status as human rights defenders and on the basis of their political opinions rendering the detention also arbitrary under category V.
BLATANT VIOLATIONS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
The Working Group recalled that under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Working Group also noted the unrefuted allegations regarding the lack of independence, due to the court being under the effective control of the executive branch. Accordingly, the Working Group concluded that the court proceedings violated the right to a fair trial guaranteed under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group also recalled that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by a counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, without delay. The 12 individuals were allegedly not provided with lawyers in a timely manner. As a result, their rights to adequate time and facilities to prepare and present a defence and to the equality of arms under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were violated. The Working Group therefore considered the detention arbitrary under category III.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION
In the light of the foregoing, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detentions of the 12 individuals were arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III and V because their deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (3), 7, 9 (1), (2), (3) and (4), 10 and 14 (3) (c) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to immediately release all 12 individuals and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Comments