The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 56/2023 concerning Salman Fahed Alodah and Khaled Alodah, starting with according them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Salman Fahed Alodah and Khaled Alodah (Saudi Arabia): Opinion No. 56/2023.
A RELIGIOUS THINKER AND AN ACADEMIC ARRESTED FOR UPHOLDING HUMAN RIGHTS
Salman Fahed Alodah, born in February 1957, is a Saudi national and a religious thinker and philosopher who peacefully advocates for civil rights and liberties. Notably, as a member of the “Islamic Awakening” movement (Al-Sahwa al-Isalmiyya) since the 1990s, he advocated for religious-based promotion of democracy and human-rights in the country. His nonconformist positions have been met with repression and arrests on a number of occasions, even more since the assumption of power of the Crown Prince in 2017. Khaled Alodah, born on 1 January 1964, is an academic and a Saudi national residing in Buraydah, Al-Qassim, who is the brother of Mr. Salman Fahed Alodah.
On 7 September 2017, Mr. Salman Alodah was arrested in his home in Riyadh by two plain-clothed state security agents without any warrant or explanation. His arrest followed his refusal to publish a tweet supporting the Crown Prince’s policies towards Qatar. On 12 September 2017, Mr. Khaled Alodah was arrested as punishment for publicly denouncing his brother’s arrest. Both were held in undisclosed locations without access to legal counsel or contact with their families, constituting enforced disappearance until the government officially acknowledged their detention on 26 December 2017. Such acknowledgement was made after the case of Mr. Salman Alodah was submitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
Mr. Salman Alodah was informed of the 37 charges brought against him on 4 September 2018, after months of alleged solitary confinement and torture - none of which referred to specific acts of (incitement to) violence. As of Mr. Khaled Alodah, he was charged with “sympathising with his brother” and “seeking to employ the arrest of his brother to stir up discord and destabilise security” in October 2018. Mr. Khaled Alodah was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, later increased to eight years on appeal, while Mr. Salman Alodah remains in pre-trial detention facing the death penalty.
The Government of Saudi Arabia was given the opportunity to answer these allegations, which it did on 27 April 2023.
ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANTS AND SUBJECTED TO PROLONGED DETENTION
Mr. Salman and Mr. Khaled Alodah were arrested without being presented with an arrest warrant or informed of the reasons for their arrest. The Working Group considered the Government's response insufficient, notably noting that only specific authorities can emitt arrest warrants and that informing the detainees of the charges during their first hearing was far too late. As such, the Working Group found a violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In addition, the Government failed to inform the families of Mr. Salman Alodah and Mr. Khaled Alodah about their fate and whereabouts for nearly four months after their arrest, resulting in enforced disappearance, and preventing them from challenging their detention. Consequently, the Working Group considered they were denied the right to an effective remedy and to be recognised as persons before the law, violating articles 6 and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The vague and broad laws under which they were arrested included charges under the Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act and the Repression of Cybercrime Act, with Mr. Salman Alodah also charged under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. According to the Working Group's jurisprudence, the provisions contained in these acts are too vague, and thus violate the principle of legality as established in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Notably, the Working Group noted that the lack of procedural safeguards often contributes to prolonged detention, presumption of innocence violations, and delayed trials, thus contravening article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Besides, Mr. Khaled Alodah's conviction under article 6 of the Repression of Cybercrime Act, previously criticised by the Working Group for its vague and broad terms, breaches legal certainty.
Considering the above, the Working Group thus found their detention lacked a legal basis, making it arbitrary under Category I.
DETAINED FOR HAVING EXERCISED THEIR FREEDOMS OF OPINION, EXPRESSION AND RELIGION
Mr. Salman Alodah's detention stemmed from his peaceful exercise of freedom of opinion and expression, advocating for democratic reforms and human rights. Similarly, Mr. Khaled Alodah was detained for publicly supporting his brother and criticising the Government's actions. Considering that the Government did not properly justified why such freedoms should have been restricted according to article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Working Group considered that the detention of Messrs. Salman and Khaled Alodah originated from rightful exercise of such freedoms, thus in violation of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Besides, the criticism of the Saudi religious establishment by Mr. Salman Alodah being also protected by the freedom to manifest one’s religion, the Working Group also found a violation of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Considering the above, the Working Group thus found their detention arbitrary under Category II.
LACK OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE, UNDUE DELAYS AND ALLEGATIONS OF TORTURE
According to the source, Mr. Salman Alodah and Mr. Khaled Alodah were denied legal counsel during pre-trial detention and were not informed of the charges against them until their respective first court sessions. Additionally, both were subjected to enforced disappearance for over four months. Considering that the Government failed to rebut these allegations, the Working Group considered that both individuals were denied the right to legal assistance as part of their right to a fair trial, enshrined in articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At the time of its communication, the source argued that Mr. Salman Alodah was being held in pre-trial detention for more than four years, which the Government justified by the gravity of the charges brought against him. Considering this answer insufficient, the Working Group found that Mr. Salman Alodah was denied his right to a timely trial, enshrined in articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, the Working Group noted that the Specialised Criminal Court - where Mr. Khaled Alodah was tried and sentenced and where Mr. Salman Alodah's trial is ongoing - lacks independence and impartiality, violating article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Lastly, the source argued that both Messrs. Salman and Khaled Alodah were subjected to torture. Specifically, the source claimed that the former was for several years held in solitary confinement, subjected to sensory deprivation, alongside other forms of physical and psychological torture. Considering the Government's insufficient response to these allegations, the Working Group recalled that such allegations could further undermine the fairness of their trials, and referred this case to the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Altogether, the Working Group thus deemed these violations severe enough to render their detention arbitrary under Category III.
DETAINED FOR CRITICISING THE CROWN PRINCE AND GOVERNMENT
Finally, the source maintained that Mr. Salman Alodah was detained on discriminatory grounds as he is a religious scholar in a theocracy, and his criticism of royal power is considered as both a political and a religious transgression, criminalised under the Anti-Terrorism Law. In concern of Mr. Khaled Alodah, his detention is discriminatory as he was arrested for supporting his brother on Twitter. Notably, the source submitted that in regard to the public denunciation of his brother’s arrest, travel bans have been imposed on 17 members of the family. The Government provided no substantial evidence to counter these allegations.
As such, the Working Group concluded that both individuals were deprived of their liberty on discriminatory grounds, namely based on their political and religious opinions and their status as human rights defenders. Their detention thus violate articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, the Working Group concluded that the detention of Messrs. Slamn Alodah and Khaled Alodah was arbitrary under Category V.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
The UN Working Group Against Arbitrary Detention considers the detention of Salman Fahed Alodah and Khaled Alodah to be arbitrary, falling under Categories I, II, III, and V due to violations of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group expresses grave concern regarding their continued detention despite the arbitrary nature of their arrest and calls on the Government of Saudi Arabia to take immediate action.
The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Salman Fahed Alodah and Khaled Alodah without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release both individuals immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law. The Working Group also urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of both individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights.
Comments