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. 43/2023 concerning Selim Diyaboğlu, asking the United Arab Emirates to immediately release him, and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Selim Diyaboğlu (United Arab Emirates): Opinion 43/2023.
ARBITRARILY ARRESTED, HELD INCOMMUNICADO AND SUBJECTED TO ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
Selim Diyaboğlu is a national of both the Syrian Arab Republic and Türkiye, born on 25 October 1990. He was legally residing in the United Arab Emirates, where he had been doing business for 15 years at the time of his first arrest.
On 28 August 2020, he was arrested by the security forces at Dubai International Airport, and eventually released after a first detention period of 11 days. Around 20 days following his release, he was once again arrested at his home, and has been detained ever since at the Al Wathba prison in Abu Dhabi. According to the source, Mr. Diyaboğlu received a prison sentence under Law No.7 of 2014 on combating terrorist offences. The Government was given the opportunity to contest these allegations, which it partially did.
Following his arrest on 28 August 2020, and during his following detention which lasted 11 days, Mr. Diyaboğlu was not presented with an arrest warrant, nor given any reason for his arrest. This claim was not refuted by the Government, which argued Mr. Diyaboğlu was presented with an arrest warrant when arrested on 11 September 2020. As such, the Working Group found that Mr. Diyaboğlu was not promptly informed of the charges against him following his first arrest, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr. Diyaboğlu was not promptly brought before a judge following his arrest on 28 August 2020, nor was provided with an independent, objective and impartial review of his detention. Considering the Government’s response insufficient on this matter, the Working Group found this situation in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Besides, from his arrest on 28 August 2020 onwards, and for a period of more than seven months, Mr. Diyaboğlu was held in a secret location. As such, he was unable to contact the outside world, including his family. The Government argued that Mr. Diyaboğlu had contact with his family, giving examples of calls he received from his family dating from three years after his arrest. Considering the above, the Working Group found that Mr. Diyaboğlu was subjected to incommunicado detention. During this period, Mr. Diyaboğlu was thus not able to access legal representation, which the Working Group found in violation of his right to challenge the legality of his detention, under articles 3, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a direct consequence, the Working Group also found that Mr. Diyaboğlu was denied the right to an effective remedy, in violation of article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Eventually, Mr. Diyaboğlu was held in a secret location for several months. The Government argued Mr. Diyaboğlu was held in Al Wathba prison, but did not provide information concerning the period following his arrest on 28 August 2020, nor demonstrated that his family was informed of his whereabouts. The Working Group thus found that Mr. Diyaboğlu was subjected to enforced disappearance, which is an aggravated form of arbitrary detention, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, it also found that Mr. Diyaboğlu was placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, considering all the above, the Working Group found that Mr. Diyaboğlu’s arrest and detention lacked a legal basis, rendering his deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category I.
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Not only during his prolonged incommunicado detention, but during his entire time in detention, Mr. Diyaboğlu did not have access to legal assistance. As such, the Working Group found this denied Mr. Diyaboğlu’s right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, as well as his right to be presumed innocent, in violation of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Moreover, while the source alleged Mr. Diyaboğlu was subjected to torture and ill-treatment to force him to confess, the Government denied it. Though unable to reach a conclusion on this matter, the Working Group recalled that the conditions of incommunicado detentions were conducive to such mistreatments, and that confessions made without a legal representation and/or obtained through such mistreatments were not legally admissible.
Eventually, Mr. Diyaboğlu’s right to consular assistance from Türkiye was violated by the authorities of the United Arab Emirates. The Working Group noted that this was a violation of article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and stressed that this situation significantly affected Mr. Diyaboğlu’s ability to obtain legal assistance. The Working Group also found that this violation denied Mr. Diyaboğlu’s rights to due process and to a fair trial, in violation of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Henceforth, considering the above, the Working Group found Mr. Diyaboğlu’s detention arbitrary under category III.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the UN Working Group Against Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Selim Diyaboğlu was arbitrary and fell under categories I and III, because his deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group urged the Government to investigate the circumstances of the violations of his rights and take appropriate measures against those responsible for them. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release him immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Eventually, the Working Group noted that this case was part of a larger pattern of arbitrary arrests and detentions that seems to have emerged in the United Arab Emirates in the recent years. It recalled that under certain circumstances, such widespread or systemic detentions may constitute crimes against humanity.
コメント