Appendix 2: Evidence Submitted to the FFP

Appendix 2: Evidence submitted to the FFP

Human Rights Watch Page 1. HRW's written submission 1 2. The High Cost of Change 13 3. Prominent detainees held incommunicado 35 4. Saudi Arabia allow access to detained women 39 activists 5. Saudi Arabia free adult children of ex- official 43

Freedom Now submissions in relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Page 6. An English translation of the charges against Loujain 46 al-Hathloul 7. Freedom Now’s petition to the UN Working Group on 51 Arbitrary Detention on behalf of Loujain al-Hathloul 8. Saudi Arabia's response to Freedom Now’s petition 83 (provided by the Saudi government to the UN Working Group) 9. Freedom Now's comments on Saudi Arabia's response 95 10. The opinion of the UN Working Group – 12 June 2020 111

Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) Page 11. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) 127 submission

Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 12. Grant Liberty report- December 2020 130

MENA Rights Group Page 13. MENA Rights Group submission on Messrs Salman Al 171 Saud and Abdulaziz Al Saud

Human Rights Watch Page 1 of 174

Human Rights Watch Memo for Fact Finding Panel – Investigation in the Detention of Former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz

I. Summary of Repression Under the De Facto Rule of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman In the summer of 2017, Mohammed bin Salman ousted his cousin Mohammed bin Nayef from power and became crown prince. Almost immediately the authorities began to purge former security and intelligence officials and quietly reorganized the country’s prosecution service and security apparatus, the primary tools of Saudi repression, and placed them directly under the royal court’s oversight. With the security apparatus completely under royal court control, the authorities then launched a series of arrest campaigns, targeting dozens of critics and potential critics of Saudi government policies. These arrest waves targeted prominent clerics, public intellectuals, academics, and human rights activists in September 2017, leading businesspeople and royal family members accused of corruption in November 2017, the country’s most prominent women’s rights advocates beginning in May 2018, and Saudi intellectuals in April 2019. The arrests waves were often accompanied by defamation and slander of those arrested in the country’s progovernment media.1

Detaining citizens for peaceful criticism of the government’s policies or human rights advocacy is not a new phenomenon in Saudi Arabia, but what has made the post-2017 arrest waves notable and different, however, is the sheer number and range of individuals targeted over a short period of time as well as the introduction of new repressive practices not seen under previous Saudi leadership.

These new tactics include cases of holding detainees at unofficial places of detention, such as the detention of so-called corruption detainees at the five-star Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh from late 2017 into early 2018, as well as the detention of prominent women’s rights activists at a “hotel” or “guesthouse” during the summer of 2018. While in unofficial detention centers, allegations have emerged that torture and mistreatment of detainees were rampant. For example, in March 12, 2018 the New York Times reported that 17 Ritz-Carlton detainees required hospitalization for physical abuse, including one man who later died in custody. In addition, in late 2018 Human Rights Watch received credible information from informed sources that authorities had tortured four prominent Saudi women activists while in an unofficial detention center, including by administering electric shocks, whipping the women on their thighs, forcible hugging and kissing, and groping.

1 Human Rights Watch, The High Cost of Change: Repression Under Saudi Crown Prince Tarnishes Reforms, November 4, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/11/04/high-cost-change/repression-under-saudi-crown- prince-tarnishes-reforms#_ftn22. Human Rights Watch Page 2 of 174

Abusive practices also have included long-term arbitrary detention – over three years – without charge, trial, or any clear legal process. For example, some of the so-called corruption detainees arrested in late 2017 remain at this writing in detention without charge or trial, including Turki bin Abdullah, the son of the late King Abdullah and former governor of Riyadh, Adel al-Fakih, a former minister, and Bakr Binladin, a construction mogul.

Authorities also targeted family members of prominent Saudi dissidents and activists, including by imposing arbitrary travel bans. Omar Abdulaziz, a Canada-based Saudi dissident, said that Saudi authorities detained his two brothers in August 2018 in an effort to silence his online activism.

Other abusive practices have included extorting financial assets of detainees in exchange for their release outside of any legal process and seeking the death penalty against detainees for acts that do not resemble recognizable crimes. For example, Saudi prosecutors are currently seeking the death penalty against reformist religious thinker Hassan Farhan al-Maliki on vague charges relating to the expression of his peaceful religious ideas, as well as against the widely known cleric Salman al-Awda on charges stemming solely from his peaceful political statements, associations, and positions. Both men were detained during the September 2017 crackdown. Saudi Arabia has reportedly used commercially available surveillance technologies to hack into the online accounts of government critics and dissidents. Citizen Lab, an academic research center based in Canada, concluded with “high confidence” that in 2018 a Saudi activist’s mobile phone was infected with spyware, and other activists have announced that they were targeted with the same spyware.

II. Ouster of Mohammed bin Nayef and Consolidation of Power and Restructuring of the Security Apparatus When Salman bin Abdulaziz acceded to the Saudi throne in January 2015, Prince Mohammed, the first son from his third marriage, was a relative unknown. Unlike some of his older brothers, who included Sultan bin Salman, the first Arab and Muslim ever to fly in outer space, or Abdulaziz bin Salman, a major figure in Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, Prince Mohammed did not have a significant public profile prior to 2015 nor had he studied outside the country like many prominent royal family members.2 Rather, he had quietly served his father, primarily as an advisor to Salman while he was Minister of Defense and governor of Riyadh. According to Karen Elliott House, Prince Mohammed became close to his father by remaining by his side while he grieved the deaths of his eldest and third eldest sons in 2001 and 2002 respectively, both from heart disease.3

Mohammed bin Salman burst onto the international arena in January 2015 when his father, immediately after becoming king, appointed him defense minister (Salman’s former position).4

2 Karen Elliott House, “The Making of Saudi Arabia’s Energetic, Ruthless Crown Prince,” The Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-making-of-saudi-arabias-energetic-ruthless-crown-prince- 11555082281 (accessed August 30, 2019). 3 Ibid. 4 “Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman named defense minister,” Al Arabiya, January 23, 2015, https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/01/23/Saudi-Prince-Mohammad-bin-Salman-appointed- defense-minister-head-of-Royal-Court.html (accessed August 30, 2019). Human Rights Watch Page 3 of 174

As defense minister he quickly established himself as less cautious than his predecessors, facilitating the launch of major military operations in Yemen in March 2015 by a coalition of countries. The military campaign aimed to roll back the advances of the Ansar Allah militant group (known as the Houthis), a Zaydi Shia group which had taken over most of Yemen, including the capital Sanaa, and expelled the country’s internationally-recognized government headed by President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

When King Salman took the throne, he promoted Mohammed bin Nayef, Mohammed bin Salman’s cousin and former interior minister who successfully led Saudi Arabia’s counter- insurgency efforts after 2004, as deputy crown prince behind Crown Prince Muqrin, who is Mohammed bin Salman’s uncle. Within three months, however, King Salman altered the line of succession, sacking Muqrin and elevating Mohammed bin Nayef to crown prince and Mohammed bin Salman to deputy crown prince.5

Between April 2015 and June 2017, the division of power between Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Nayef was clear, with Mohammed bin Salman in control of the country’s economy and military, and Mohammed bin Nayef in control of domestic security affairs.

On June 17, 2017, however, the first major crack in the fragile arrangement appeared when King Salman issued a royal decree removing Othman al-Muhrij from his position as director of the country’s Public Security Directorate (police), a major agency within the Interior Ministry.6 The same day, he also issued a royal decree severing the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution (BIP) from the Interior Ministry and re-establishing it as the Public Prosecution, an “independent” entity reporting directly to the king and headed by a new head prosecution official called the Attorney General. The royal decree stated that the change was “in [accordance] with the rules and principles of many countries of the world,” and based on “the necessity of separation between executive authority in the state and the bureau and its work since it is part of the judicial authority.”7

The Saudi prosecution service is a major tool of Saudi repression and has been used to terrorize peaceful Saudi dissidents since 1988 through various means, including harassment, endless

5 Justin Vela, “Saudi Arabia’s King Salman changes line of succession,” The National, April 25, 2015, https://www.thenational.ae/world/saudi-arabia-s-king-salman-changes-line-of-succession-1.69077 (accessed August 30, 2019). 6 Abdallah al-Barqawi, “By Order of the King, Ending the Service of the Director of Public Security, Changing the Name of the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution, and Dismissals and Appointments,” SABQ, https://sabq.org/%D8%A8%D8%A3%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83- %D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A- %D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9- %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82- %D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A1- %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85?t=1497671988 (accessed October 30, 2019). 7 Royal Decree 240 available here: https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=ar&newsid=1640804 (accessed August 30, 2019). Human Rights Watch Page 4 of 174

summonses for interrogation, arbitrary detention, and prosecution in blatantly unfair trials on spurious charges.8 These practices accelerated and increased following the 2017 reorganization.

On June 21, within days of removing the prosecution service from Mohammed bin Nayef’s control, King Salman acted decisively by stripping him of all his official positions and appointing his son Mohammed bin Salman crown prince and presumptive future king.9 To secure his elevation, Mohammed bin Salman reportedly garnered all but 3 votes in the country’s allegiance council, which decides on succession issues and is made up of 34 royal family members who are sons or represent the families of sons of Saudi Arabia’s founding King Abdulaziz.10

Citing US intelligence officials, the New York Times reported on June 28, 2017 that Mohammed bin Nayef had not only been deposed but also placed under house arrest at his Jeddah palace and prevented from leaving the country.11 An informed source told Human Rights Watch that in addition to placing Mohammed bin Nayef under house arrest, authorities also purged many officials loyal to him from the security apparatus, including by detaining two high-level Interior Ministry officials. Saad al-Jabri, a security official close to Mohammed bin Nayef who served as Saudi Arabia’s liaison to western intelligence agencies, fled the country.12 The source said that authorities banned immediate family members of Mohammed bin Nayef and these officials from travel and froze their bank accounts and assets.13 The sidelining of Mohammed bin Nayef and his loyalists effectively removed the most serious royal challenger to Mohammed bin Salman.

For the remainder of 2017, King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed moved against other individuals who could potentially curb their power, culminating in the establishment of an anticorruption committee headed by the crown prince which carried out so-called corruption arrests on November 4, 2017, when powerful figures within the royal family and influential Saudis such as Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a prominent businessman, Abdulaziz bin Fahd, a former cabinet member, Turki bin Abdullah, a former governor of Riyadh, Fahd bin Abdullah, a former defense minister, and Mutaib bin Abdullah, then-Minister of National Guard, and at least nine other princes were detained, stripped of their positions, and forced to hand over financial

8 Human Rights Watch, Challenging the Red Lines: Stories of Rights Activists in Saudi Arabia, December 17, 2013, https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/12/17/challenging-red-lines/stories-rights-activists-saudi-arabia. 9 “Saudi Arabia: Leadership Change Should Prioritize Improving Rights,” Human Rights Watch news release, June 22, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/22/saudi-arabia-leadership-change-should-prioritize-improving- rights. 10 Naser Al Wasmi, “Saudi Arabia’s Allegiance Council gives Prince Mohammed bin Salman vote of confidence,” The National, June 21, 2017, https://www.thenational.ae/world/saudi-arabia-s-allegiance-council-gives-prince- mohammed-bin-salman-vote-of-confidence-1.92347 (accessed August 30, 2019). 11 Ben Hubbard, Eric Schmitt, and Mark Mazzetti, “Deposed Saudi Prince Is Said to Be Confined to Palace,” New York Times, June 28, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/world/middleeast/deposed-saudi-prince- mohammed-bin-nayef.html (accessed August 30, 2019); “Saudi Arabia: Clarify Status of Ex-Crown Prince,” Human Rights Watch news release, July 27, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/27/saudi-arabia-clarify-status-ex- crown-prince. 12 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, October 29, 2019. 13 Ibid. Human Rights Watch Page 5 of 174

assets in exchange for their freedom.14 The so-called corruption arrests appeared to especially target the sons of the late King Abdullah. Some royal detainees, including Turki bin Abdullah, remain in detention without charge at the time of writing.

In order to cement his position as crown prince, beginning in mid-2017 King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed sought to overhaul the security infrastructure of the state and effectively downgrade the previously powerful role of interior minister.

In addition to placing the prosecution service under the purview of the royal court, King Salman also created a new agency, the Presidency of State Security, which absorbed the intelligence and counterterrorism functions formerly held by the Interior Ministry. The new agency contains the General Directorate of Investigation (known as Mabahith, the notorious domestic security agency) as well as Saudi Arabia’s special counterterrorism forces, which is headed by longtime Interior Ministry official Abdulaziz bin Mohammed al-Howairini. Commenting on the change, Arab News said, “…after the rise of the terror threat [in the early 2000s], the Interior Ministry concentrated much of its efforts on fighting this scourge. This led to the addition of a large number of responsibilities, which affected the ministry’s other services such as police, traffic and the passport department.”15

Following the reduction of responsibilities of the Interior Ministry, King Salman appointed a new minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud, then 34, a relative of Mohammed bin Salman and son of the governor of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province.16 The appointment of Prince Abdulaziz kept the interior minister portfolio with the Nayef faction of the royal family, which has held the position nearly continuously since 1975, but the prestige and power of the position had been drastically reduced.

The centralization of power also extended to the military, whereby in November 2017 King Salman and Mohammed bin Salman removed control of the Saudi National Guard, an independent military force, from the late King Abdullah’s son Mutaib and jailed him for alleged corruption, effectively bringing all branches of the Saudi armed forces under the control of the royal court.17

14 Stephen Kalin and Katie Paul, “Future Saudi king tightens grip on power with arrests including Prince Alwaleed,” Reuters, November 5, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests/future-saudi-king-tightens-grip-on- power-with-arrests-including-prince-alwaleed-idUSKBN1D506P (accessed August 30, 2019); “Saudi Arabia: Corruption Arrests Raise Due Process Concerns,” Human Rights Watch news release, November 8, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/08/saudi-arabia-corruption-arrests-raise-due-process-concerns. 15 “Saudi Arabia forms new apparatus of state security,” Arab News, July 21, 2017, https://www.arabnews.com/node/1132466/saudi-arabia (accessed August 30, 2019) 16 “PROFILE: New Saudi Interior Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef,” Al Arabiya, June 21, 2017, https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/06/21/PROFILE-The-new-Saudi-Interior-Minister.html (accessed August 30, 2019). 17 Katie Paul, “Saudi prince, relieved from National Guard, once seen as throne contender,” Reuters, November 4, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-government-defence-newsmaker/saudi-prince-relieved-from- national-guard-once-seen-as-throne-contender-idUSKBN1D40VG (accessed September 17, 2019). Human Rights Watch Page 6 of 174

Since his appointment as crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman has chaired both of the Saudi Council of Ministers’ subcommittees, putting him in charge of both economic affairs as well as political and security affairs.

In early March 2020, Saudi authorities detained former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and his uncle, Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, on vague corruption allegations.18 According to lawyers representing the former crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, he has been detained without charge since his arrest in March, and his and Prince Ahmed’s current whereabouts are unknown. While the prince has occasionally been allowed to make calls to family members, some of which were reportedly made under duress, the lawyers said that he has been denied visits with family members since his arrest and his personal doctor since his initial period of detention. The lawyers said they do not know whether the prince has received treatment for his diabetes and that there are serious concerns about his well-being and health.19

In March 2020, Saudi also authorities intensified their campaign against Saad al-Jabri, the former intelligence official with ties to Mohammed bin Nayef, by detaining his two adult children and holding them in incommunicado detention apparently in order to coerce al-Jabri to return to Saudi Arabia from exile.20 In August 2020, al-Jabri filed a lawsuit in United States federal court against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The lawsuit asserts that the crown prince sent a team of state agents to Canada to kill him in 2018.21

III. Torture and other Ill-Treatment in Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is a state party to the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but extensive research by human rights organizations and UN treaty bodies has demonstrated that Saudi Arabia has not complied with the convention. Since Mohammad bin Salman became crown prince in June 2017, Saudi authorities have undertaken mass arrests of political dissidents, independent clerics, academics, and intellectuals, as well as human rights activists. Some individuals detained under this crackdown have reported serious allegations of torture and other ill-treatment in detention.

i. Torture of Saudi women’s rights activists detained after May 2018 In May 2018, just weeks before Saudi authorities lifted the ban on women driving on June 24, the authorities opened a large-scale coordinated crackdown against the country’s women’s rights movement. Authorities arrested at least 13 prominent women’s rights activists and accused

18 David D. Kirkpatrick and Ben Hubbard, “Saudi Prince Detains Senior Members of Royal Family,” New York Times, March 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/world/middleeast/saudi-royal-arrest.html (accessed November 5, 2020). 19 “Saudi Arabia: Prominent Detainees Held Incommunicado,” Human Rights Watch news release, September 6, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/06/saudi-arabia-prominent-detainees-held-incommunicado. 20 “Saudi Arabia: Free Adult Children of Ex-Official,” Human Rights Watch news release, May 25, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/25/saudi-arabia-free-adult-children-ex-official. 21 Ben Hubbard and Mark Mazzetti, “Former Saudi Official Accuses the Crown Prince of Trying to Kill Him,” New York Times, August 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/world/middleeast/saudi-prince-mohammed- lawsuit-aljabri.html (accessed November 5, 2020). Human Rights Watch Page 7 of 174

several of them of grave crimes that appear to be directly related to their activism. Government- aligned media outlets carried out an alarming campaign against them, branding them “traitors.”22

At least ten women remain detained without charge. Government statements and official media reports referred to anticipated charges that could carry prison terms of up to 20 years. The ten women are Loujain al-Hathloul, Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, Nouf Abdelaziz, Mayaa al- Zahrani, Hatoon al-Fassi, Samar Badawi, Nassema al-Sadah, Shaden al-Onaizi, and Amal al- Harbi.23

In November 2018, Human Rights Watch obtained credible evidence which it published that Saudi authorities tortured the detained the women activists in detention. The torture included electric shocks, whippings, waterboarding, and sexual harassment and assault including touching and groping. Human Rights Watch has received detailed accounts of the treatment from four of the detained women.24 The treatment of prominent activist Loujain al-Hathloul was described in detail by her sister in an article for the New York Times in January 2019. According to her sister, “[Loujain] said she had been held in solitary confinement, beaten, waterboarded, given electric shocks, sexually harassed and threatened with rape and murder. My parents then saw that her thighs were blackened by bruises.”25 Other human rights groups have reported additional allegations, including prolonged solitary confinement of the women, displaying naked photographs of one of the women during interrogation, beatings on the feet (falaka or bastinado), and forcing two of the women to kiss each other on the lips.26

According to informed sources, the torture sessions took place at an unofficial detention facility called a “hotel” or “officer’s guesthouse” near Jeddah. The women were held there between May and August. One source told Human Rights Watch that the men responsible for mistreating the women were from “cyber security,” a probable reference to officers working under the authority of the former royal court adviser Saud al-Qahtani, who was reportedly fired for his role in the murder of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018.27 After transferring all

22 “Saudi Arabia: Growing Crackdown on Women’s Rights Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, May 23, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/23/saudi-arabia-growing-crackdown-womens-rights-activists. 23 “Prominent Saudi Women Activists Arrested,” Human Rights Watch news release, August 1, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/01/prominent-saudi-women-activists-arrested. 24 “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-women-activists; Margherita Stancati and Summer Said, “Saudi Arabia Accused of Torturing Women’s-Rights Activists in Widening Crackdown on Dissent,” Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-accused-of- torturing-women-activists-in-widening-crackdown-on-dissent-1542743107 (accessed February 15, 2019); “Deposed aide to Saudi crown prince accused of role in female activists' torture,” Reuters, December 6, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-aide/deposed-aide-to-saudi-crown-prince-accused-of-role-in- female-activists-torture-idUSKBN1O51ZX (accessed February 15, 2019). 25 Alia al-Hathloul, “My Sister Is in a Saudi Prison. Will Mike Pompeo Stay Silent?” New York Times, January 13, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/opinion/saudi-women-rights-activist-prison-pompeo.html (accessed February 15, 2019). 26 “ALQST Confirms New Details of Torture of Saudi Women Activists as British MPs Seek Access to Prisons to Investigate,” ALQST, January 3, 2019, https://alqst.org/eng/confirms-new-details-of-torture-of-saudi-women- activists-as-british-mps-seek-access-to-prisons-to-investigate/ (accessed February 15, 2019) 27 “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-women-activists; “Deposed aide to Saudi crown prince accused of role in female activists' torture,” Reuters, December 6, 2018, Human Rights Watch Page 8 of 174

the women to Dhahban Prison in August, sources stated that authorities would occasionally take women out of the prison for additional torture sessions at the unofficial detention facility.28

Around December 2018, following reporting of the allegations, authorities transferred some of the women to al-Ha’ir Prison in Riyadh, others to Dammam Prison in Dammam, while some remain in Dhahban Prison.29 Western media outlets have reported that Saudi authorities opened two investigations into the torture allegations by women’s rights advocates, one by Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Commission, a government agency, and one by Saudi Arabia’s public prosecutor, which reports directly to the royal court.30 Neither agency has the independence necessary to conduct a credible, transparent investigation that would hold perpetrators of torture accountable.

On March 1, 2019, Saudi Arabia’s Public Prosecution announced that it would refer women to trial, and a representative of the prosecution office denied the torture allegations, telling media that the allegations had been investigated by the Public Prosecution and Human Rights Commission and found to be unsubstantiated.31

On January 2, 2019, a panel of British parliament members and international lawyers sent an official request to Saudi authorities for access to the country and to detained women’s rights advocates, but the request did not receive a response.32 The panel issued a comprehensive report detailing the torture allegations in February.33 On February 14, 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on member states “to raise the case of Loujain al-Hathloul, Eman al- Nafjan, Aziza al-Yousef, Samar Badawi, Nassima al-Sada and all other women human rights defenders detained in May 2018, in their dialogues with the Saudi authorities, and to demand

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-aide/deposed-aide-to-saudi-crown-prince-accused-of-role-in- female-activists-torture-idUSKBN1O51ZX (accessed February 15, 2019). 28 “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-women-activists. 29 Human Rights Watch communications with informed sources, January and February 2019. 30 Vivian Nereim, “Saudis to Probe Allegations That Women Activists Torture,” Bloomberg, January 13, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-13/saudis-said-to-probe-allegations-that-women-activists- tortured (accessed February 15, 2019); Margherita Stancati and Summer Said, “Jailed Women’s Rights Activists Tell Saudi Investigators of Torture,” Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/jailed- womens-rights-activists-tell-saudi-investigators-of-torture-11545074461 (accessed February 15, 2019). 31 “Saudi Persecution Denies Activist Subjected to Torture,” Al Arabiya, March 2, 2019, https://www.alarabiya.net/ar/saudi- today/2019/03/02/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9- %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A- %D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A9- %D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8 (accessed April 4, 2019). 32 Letter by Detention Review Panel For Detained Women Activists in Saudi Arabia to His Excellency Prince Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz, Saudi ambassador to the Court of St James, January 2, 2019, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a9301ef0dbda346e74d0bf9/t/5c2a0a762b6a28bef1a8071d/1546259063532/ Women+Activist+Detainees+Letter+2+January+2019.pdf (accessed February 15, 2019). 33 “Detention Review Panel into Women Activist Detainees in Saudi Arabia,” Detention Review Panel, February 2019, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a9301ef0dbda346e74d0bf9/t/5c54a707e2c483db6d77a645/1549051658028/ DRP+report+-Women+Activist+Detainees+in+Saudi+Arabia+February+2019.pdf (accessed February 15, 2019). Human Rights Watch Page 9 of 174

their release.” The resolution also called on the Saudi authorities to investigate torture allegations.34

ii. Threats of Retaliation for Reporting Torture Allegations Following the murder of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, human rights organizations and international media outlets have reported extensively on Saudi authorities’ targeting of prominent dissidents at home and abroad as well as their family members.

Prominent Saudi activist Omar Abdulaziz, a resident of Canada, stated that after he began to criticize Saudi authorities online while studying abroad Saudi authorities canceled his scholarship and arrested two of his brothers.35 Saudi authorities have also used diplomatic leverage to compel other countries in the region to forcibly return Saudi dissidents living or working abroad. Those forcibly returned by other countries in recent years include Loujain al- Hathloul from the United Arab Emirates in March 2018, her then-husband Fahad al-Butairi from Jordan in March 2018, poet Nawaf al-Rasheed from Kuwait in May 2018, and human rights activist Mohammad al-Otaibi from Qatar in May 2017.36

One prominent Saudi women’s rights activist living in the United States told Human Rights Watch that she stopped appearing in media interviews or giving quotes to journalists because Saudi authorities threatened one of her family members who lives in Saudi Arabia.37 Furthermore, after Loujain al-Hathloul’s father tweeted a veiled confirmation that his daughter had been tortured in detention in December 2018, he quickly deleted his account under pressure from the authorities.38

Media outlets have also reported on Saudi Arabia’s increasing use of spyware and Twitter “troll armies” to surveil, silence, and attack peaceful critics and dissidents.39 Saudi officials have

34 European Parliament, “European Parliament resolution on women’s rights defenders in Saudi Arabia,” Resolution 2019/2564(RSP), February 14, 2019, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2019-0115&language=EN (accessed February 15, 2019). 35 Ben Hubbard, “’Our Hands Can Reach You’: Khashoggi Case Shakes Saudi Dissidents Abroad,” New York Times, October 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/world/middleeast/saudi-jamal-khashoggi- dissent.html (accessed February 15, 2019). 36 Ben Hubbard, “’Our Hands Can Reach You’: Khashoggi Case Shakes Saudi Dissidents Abroad,” New York Times, October 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/world/middleeast/saudi-jamal-khashoggi- dissent.html (accessed February 15, 2019); “Saudi Arabia: Reveal Young Poet’s Whereabouts,” Human Rights Watch news release, June 13, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/saudi-arabia-reveal-young-poets- whereabouts; “Qatar: Forcible Return of Saudi Activist,” Human Rights Watch new release, May 31, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/31/qatar-forcible-return-saudi-activist; 37 Human Rights Watch communication with prominent Saudi women’s rights activist, December 2018. 38 “Saudi woman activist tortured in jail: father,” Gulf Times, December 23, 2018, https://www.gulf- times.com/story/617233/Saudi-woman-activist-tortured-in-jail-father (accessed February 15, 2019). 39 Katie Benner, Mark Mazzetti, Ben Hubbard and Mike Isaac, “Saudis’ Image Makers: A Troll Army and a Twitter Insider,” New York Times, October 20, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/us/politics/saudi-image- campaign-twitter.html?dlbk=&module=inline (accessed December 17, 2018); Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, “How ‘Mr. Hashtag’ Helped Saudi Arabia Spy on Dissidents,” Motherboard, October 29, 2018, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzjmze/saud-al-qahtani-saudi-arabia-hacking-team (accessed December 17, 2018). Human Rights Watch Page 10 of 174

openly used Twitter to harass and target dissidents. On August 17, 2017, Saud Al-Qahtani, a former advisor to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, started the hashtag “#The_Black_List” in which he called on Saudis to suggest online critics to target.40

Given Saudi Arabia’s record of retaliating against Saudi activists and their family members for speaking out about torture and other human rights abuses, it is unlikely that witnesses would be able to provide testimony about specific incidents of torture without risking their own freedom and safety or the freedom and safety of their family members in Saudi Arabia.

iii. Saudi Arabia’s Torture Record Human Rights Watch has documented numerous allegations that officials at detention facilities sometimes subject detainees to torture and other ill-treatment, including at detention facilities run by Saudi Arabia’s Public Security Department (police) and by the General Directorate of Investigation (al-Mabahith). Authorities generally did not investigative allegations of torture, identify perpetrators or hold them accountable, and in many cases judges convicted defendants and sentenced some to death based solely on confessions made by defendants during interrogation that they later repudiated and said were given under torture or other ill-treatment.41

Many cases of torture documented by Human Rights Watch occurred before Mohammad bin Salman became crown prince of Saudi Arabia in June 2017, but under his rule Saudi Arabia has not made significant improvements to its torture record, and the pressure on victims and their families to remain silent has remained in full force.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requested visits to Saudi Arabia in 2006 and 2017, but Saudi authorities have blocked these visits.42 Definition and Criminalization of Torture Saudi Arabia applies Sharia (Islamic law) as the law of the land. Judges decide many matters relating to criminal offenses pursuant to Sharia in accordance with established rules of Islamic jurisprudence and precedent. As such, Saudi Arabia lacks a written criminal penal code or any written regulation specifically defining crimes of torture or ill-treatment or establishing associated punishments.43

While Saudi Arabia’s Criminal Procedure Code prohibits “torture” and “undignified treatment” (art. 2), it does not define these terms and it does not provide criminal sanctions for officials who

40 Tweet from Saud al-Qahtani (@saudq1978) on Twitter social media platform, August 17, 2017, https://twitter.com/saudq1978/status/898259368696725504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7 Ctwterm%5E898259368696725504&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eremnews.com%2Fnews%2Farab- world%2Fsaudi-arabia%2F1528130 (accessed February 7, 2019). 41 “UN Committee against Torture: Review of Saudi Arabia,” Human Rights Watch, April 26, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/26/un-committee-against-torture-review-saudi-arabia#_ftn1. 42 UN Human Rights Council, “View Country visits of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council since 1998,” https://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/ViewCountryVisits.aspx?Lang=en (accessed February 15, 2019). 43 Saudi Arabia Basic Law of Governance, article 48. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/sa/sa016en.pdf (accessed February 15, 2019). Human Rights Watch Page 11 of 174

torture or coerce detainees.44 The Criminal Procedure Code also does not make statements obtained through torture or ill-treatment inadmissible in court. Human Rights Watch has documented numerous cases in which individuals alleged abuse in court, but officials failed to investigate these claims and then based sentences on the allegedly coerced confessions.45

Refusal to Investigate Allegations Numerous detainees allege that Saudi interrogators and police officers have beaten and threatened suspects in order to extract confessions at police stations and detention centers, in particular at the branches of the Ministry of Interior’s Criminal Investigation Department and al- Mabahith detention centers. Based on the cases that Human Rights Watch has documented via extensive review of trial records, judges rarely, if ever, seek to authenticate the validity of confessions or take steps to ensure they were not obtained under duress.

Human Rights Watch obtained and analyzed seven separate trial judgments that the Specialized Criminal Court handed down in 2013 and 2014 against men and children accused of protest- related crimes following popular demonstrations by members of the Shia minority in 2011 and 2012 in Eastern Province towns. In all seven trials, detainees alleged that confessions were extracted through torture, but judges quickly dismissed these allegations without investigation, admitted the confessions as evidence, and then convicted the detainees almost solely based on these confessions, sometimes handing down death sentences.46

In nearly all the trial judgments analyzed by Human Rights Watch, defendants repudiated their confessions, saying they were coerced in conditions that in some cases amounted to torture, including beatings and prolonged solitary confinement. The court rejected the allegations out of hand. Some defendants asked judges to request video footage from the prison that they said would show them being tortured. Others requested that the court summon interrogators as witnesses to inquire details on how confessions were obtained. In all cases judges ignored these requests. Two of the cases involved three defendants whom judges sentenced to death for crimes allegedly committed before they were 18.47

Right to Access Lawyers and Family Members Restricted Article 4 of Saudi Arabia’s Criminal Procedure Code grants detainees the right to have a lawyer present during investigation and trial, but Human Rights Watch’s research indicates that authorities routinely deny the right to a lawyer during interrogation. None of the trial judgments analyzed by Human Rights Watch indicates that a lawyer was present during interrogations of detainees, including during interrogations of children.48

44 Saudi Arabia Criminal Procedure Regulation, 2014, article 2. Available at: https://www.moj.gov.sa/Documents/Regulations/pdf/08.pdf (accessed February 15, 2019). 45 “Saudi Arabia: Protest Convictions Flawed, Unfair,” Human Rights Watch news release, September 10, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/10/saudi-arabia-protest-convictions-flawed-unfair; Human Rights Watch, “Precarious Justice: Arbitrary Detention and Unfair Trials in the Deficient Criminal Justice System of Saudi Arabia,” March 2008, https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/saudijustice0308/. 46 “Saudi Arabia: Protest Convictions Flawed, Unfair,” Human Rights Watch news release, September 10, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/10/saudi-arabia-protest-convictions-flawed-unfair. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. Human Rights Watch Page 12 of 174

Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism legislation allows authorities to hold suspects of “terrorism crimes” for up to 90 days incommunicado without allowing them to contact family members.49 During Saudi Arabia’s review before the Committee against Torture in 2016, the committee criticized this regulation, stating that it “effectively deprives [detainees] of crucial legal safeguards against torture.”50 The committee also noted that Saudi law does not “specify a time frame within which officials must honour the right of persons deprived of their liberty to have access to a lawyer and that lawyers must obtain the permission of investigators in order to access their clients.”51

49 “Saudi Arabia: New Counterterrorism Law Enables Abuse,” Human Rights Watch news release, November 23, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/23/saudi-arabia-new-counterterrorism-law-enables-abuse. 50 United Nations Committee against Torture, “Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Saudi Arabia,” CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 , June 8, 2016, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2fC%2fSAU%2fCO%2f 2&Lang=en (accessed February 15, 2019), para. 16. 51 Ibid., para 14. Human Rights Watch Page 13 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

NOVEMBER 4, 2019 The High Cost of Change

Repression Under Saudi Crown Prince Tarnishes Reforms

Saudi Crown Prince and Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman arrives to attend the first meeting of the defense ministers and officials of the 41-member Saudi-led Muslim counter-terrorism alliance in the capital Riyadh on November 26, 2017.

Summary

“With young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s rise to power, he promised an embrace of social and economic reform. He spoke of making our country more open and tolerant and promised that he would address the things that hold back our progress, such as the ban on women driving. But all I see now is the recent wave of arrests.”

-Jamal Khashoggi, 2017

On January 23, 2015, Saudi Arabia’s 90-year-old King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud died following a protracted illness. The country faced a deteriorating economy that was overly reliant on high oil prices and unable to meet the employment and livelihood demands of Saudi Arabia’s growing youth population. King Abdullah’s successor, Salman bin Abdulaziz, a half-brother, immediately set out to address the country’s economic plight, appointing his then 29-year-old son Mohammed as the head of the newly established Council of Economic and Development Affairs and the Minister of Defense.

Mohammed bin Salman (known by his initials MBS), a relatively unknown and junior prince prior to his father’s accession to the throne, quickly became the face of Saudi Arabia’s efforts to reform the country’s economy. In April 2016 he launched Vision 2030, an ambitious government road map for economic and developmental growth that aims to reduce the country’s dependence on oil.

The following year, in June 2017, King Salman elevated his son to crown prince, making him next in line to the Saudi throne and de facto day-to-day ruler of the country. Positive changes for women and youth, combined with a major push for foreign direct investment into the world’s largest oil producing country and lavishly funded public relations efforts helped to bolster a positive image for the crown prince on the international political scene. During visits to the United Kingdom and United States in March 2018, Prince Mohammed was lauded by officials, businesspeople, and celebrities alike.

Behind the glamor and pomp of Prince Mohammed’s newfound fame abroad and advancements for Saudi women and youth, however, lay a darker reality, as the Saudi authorities moved to sideline anyone in Saudi Arabia who could stand in the way of his political ascension. In the summer of 2017, around the time of his promotion to crown prince, authorities purged former security and intelligence officials and quietly reorganized the country’s prosecution service and security apparatus, the primary tools of Saudi repression, and placed them directly under the royal court’s oversight. With the security apparatus completely under royal court control, the authorities then launched a series of arrest campaigns, targeting dozens of critics and potential critics of Saudi government policies. These arrest waves targeted prominent clerics, public intellectuals, academics, and human rights activists in September 2017, leading businesspeople and royal family members accused of corruption in November 2017, and the country’s most prominent women’s rights advocates beginning in May 2018. The arrests waves were often accompanied by defamation and slander of those arrested in the country’s progovernment media.

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 1/22 Human Rights Watch Page 14 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

These new tactics include cases of holding detainees at unofficial places of detention, such as the detention of so-called corruption detainees at the five-star Ritz- Carlton hotel in Riyadh from late 2017 into early 2018, as well as the detention of prominent women’s rights activists at a “hotel” or “guesthouse” during the summer of 2018. While in unofficial detention centers, allegations have emerged that torture and mistreatment of detainees were rampant. For example, in March 12, 2018 the New York Times reported that 17 Ritz-Carlton detainees required hospitalization for physical abuse, including one man who later died in custody. In addition, in late 2018 Human Rights Watch received credible information from informed sources that authorities had tortured four prominent Saudi women activists while in an unofficial detention center, including by administering electric shocks, whipping the women on their thighs, forcible hugging and kissing, and groping.

Abusive practices also have included long-term arbitrary detention – over two years – without charge, trial, or any clear legal process. For example, some of the so-called corruption detainees arrested in late 2017 remain at this writing in detention without charge or trial, including Turki bin Abdullah, the son of the late King Abdullah and former governor of Riyadh, Adel al-Fakih, a former minister, and Bakr Binladin, a construction mogul.

Authorities also targeted family members of prominent Saudi dissidents and activists, including by imposing arbitrary travel bans. Omar Abdulaziz, a Canada- based Saudi dissident, said that Saudi authorities detained his two brothers in August 2018 in an effort to silence his online activism.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly used commercially available surveillance technologies to hack into the online accounts of government critics and dissidents. Citizen Lab, an academic research center based in Canada, concluded with “high confidence” that in 2018 a Saudi activist’s mobile phone was infected with spyware, and other activists have announced that they were targeted with the same spyware.

Mohammed bin Salman, who was appointed defense minister in January 2015, has also ultimate responsibility for Saudi Arabia’s abusive tactics in its four-year- old military intervention in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition which has been conducting military operations against Houthi forces in Yemen, has imposed an aerial and naval blockade and restricted the flow of life-saving goods, exacerbating an existing humanitarian crisis. Saudi-led coalition aircraft have carried out apparently unlawful attacks that hit Yemeni markets, hospitals, schools, funerals, and even a school bus filled with children.

The repressive side of MBS’s domestic record, however, was not given the international scrutiny it deserved until October 2018, when the violent murder of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate shocked global opinion and led to a broader examination of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.

There was massive global media coverage of Khashoggi’s death, especially as it became clear that Saudi state agents perpetrated his murder. This was accompanied by unprecedented condemnation of Saudi abuses. Dozens of business leaders and officials pulled out of Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative Forum, otherwise known as “Davos in the desert,” which took place in Riyadh in late October 2018. On November 15, 2018, the United States imposed sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, on 17 Saudis in connection with their alleged role in the murder. https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 2/22 Human Rights Watch Page 15 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

Countries and world leaders also called attention to the continuing arbitrary detention of public dissidents and activists, particularly detained women’s rights advocates. On February 14, 2019, for example, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on Saudi Arabia to immediately and unconditionally release “women’s rights defenders and all human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and other prisoners of conscience detained and sentenced merely for exercising their right to freedom of expression and for their peaceful human rights work.” The resolution also called for an EU-wide ban on export of surveillance systems, reiterated that arms sales to Saudi Arabia contravene the EU’s common position on arms exports, and called for “restricted measures against Saudi Arabia in response to breaches of human rights, including asset freezes and visa bans.”

On March 7, 2019, 36 countries at the United Nations Human Rights Council issued the first ever joint statement on Saudi human rights abuses, calling on Saudi Arabia “to release all individuals, including Loujain al-Hathloul, Eman al-Nafjan, Aziza al-Yousef, Nassima al-Sadah, Samar Badawi, Nouf Abdelaziz, Hatoon al- Fassi, Mohammed AlBajadi, Amal Al-Harbi, and Shadan al-Anezi, detained for exercising their fundamental freedoms.”

In February 2019, a bipartisan group of US Congressional representatives led by Congresswoman Lois Frankel issued a resolution calling on Saudi Arabia to immediately and unconditionally release jailed Saudi women’s rights activists and hold those responsible for abuses accountable. A bipartisan group of US Senators led by Senator Marco Rubio introduced a similar resolution in the US Senate. Other congressional bills and resolutions pushing for Saudi government accountability for the Khashoggi murder remain under consideration at the time of writing.

Despite this global condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s escalating domestic repression, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has continued to enjoy the unwavering support of several key world leaders, including US President Donald Trump. On November 6, 2017, following Saudi Arabia’s “corruption” arrests, Trump tweeted his support, writing, “I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing...... Some of those they are harshly treating have been “milking” their country for years!” On November 20, 2018, during a period of widespread criticism over the Khashoggi murder, the Trump administration issued a statement that began with the phrase “[t]he world a dangerous place!” and referred to Jamal Khashoggi as an “enemy of the state” and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The statement went on to argue that the US should continue its arms sales to Saudi Arabia because cancelling them would mean that “Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries.”

In mid-2019, while dozens of dissidents remained on trial and in prison, and with no clear accountability for allegations of torture of detainees or the murder of Khashoggi, Saudi authorities resumed efforts to improve the country’s reputation and shift the international narrative away from the Khashoggi murder, in part by announcing major women’s rights reforms. In June 2018, just weeks after the detentions of the country’s leading women’s rights advocates, Saudi authorities lifted the ban on women driving. In late July 2019, Saudi Arabia announced that Saudi women over 21 will be able to obtain passports without the approval of a male relative, register births of their children, and benefit from new protections against employment discrimination. In early August, Saudi Arabia announced further changes to regulations allowing women over 21 to travel abroad freely without permission of a male guardian.

Despite major advances for women, ongoing arbitrary and abusive practices against dissidents and activists since mid-2017 and total lack of accountability demonstrate that the rule of law in Saudi Arabia remains weak and can be undermined at will by the country’s political leadership. It remains a criminal offense under the Saudi Arabia’s 2017 counterterrorism law to criticize the king or crown prince “in a manner that brings religion or justice into disrepute” punishable by five to ten years in prison.

In order to demonstrate that Saudi Arabia is truly reforming, King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should introduce new reforms to ensure that Saudi citizens enjoy basic human rights, including freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, as well as an independent judiciary and due process of law. The authorities can signal this commitment immediately by releasing from detention all detainees detained arbitrarily or on charges based solely on their peaceful ideas or expression, dropping all charges that do not resemble recognizable crimes against dissidents on trial, and providing accountability for perpetrators of abuses such as torture or arbitrary punishments.

Recommendations To the Government of Saudi Arabia

Immediately release all prisoners held solely for their peaceful practice of their rights to free expression and association, including prisoners convicted of alleged crimes, prisoners currently on trial, and prisoners held arbitrarily; Investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment by an independent body and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and survivors are provided with redress; Allow international monitors to enter the country and grant them unfettered access to detainees; Publicize all information about the ongoing trial of 11 individuals accused of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and implement recommendations by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary killings in her June 2019 report; Halt all acts of intimidation, harassment, and smear campaigns against rights activists and their family members, including those carried out by individuals invested with or claiming religious authority; Halt the imposition of arbitrary travel bans without justification or notification and enact changes to the Travel Documents Law ensuring that travel bans handed down by the Ministry of Interior can be challenged in court; Promulgate a penal code that clearly defines acts that give rise to criminal responsibility in line with international human rights standards. The penal code should also criminalize use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment; Rescind article 6 of the Information Crimes Law of 2007, which is regularly used to imprison dissidents for peaceful criticism; Repeal vague provisions of the 2017 Law on Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing used to unlawfully limit freedom of expression, including article 30, as well as provisions that allow for indefinite detention of suspects and temporary incommunicado detention; https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 3/22 Human Rights Watch Page 16 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

Permit detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court, ensure all detainees are brought promptly before a court to review the legality and necessity of their detention, to guarantee access to legal counsel in a timely manner, and to make statements obtained under duress or torture inadmissible in court; Promptly, and prior to interrogation, allow a detainee to communicate with legal counsel of his or her choice, and inform him or her of this right at police stations, Mabahith offices, and other custodial settings of law enforcement agencies in compliance with the Law of Criminal Procedure; Videotape all interrogations and promptly make the full content of those tapes available to the detainee and his or her counsel; Halt practices requiring a detainee to pledge to abstain from certain acts or perform certain acts as a condition of release, unless such a pledge is part of a formal, judicially sanctioned agreement and does not in any way inhibit the exercise of the detainee’s human rights.

To Saudi Arabia’s Key Allies

Sanction Saudi officials at the highest levels who played a role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi or committed acts of torture; Restrict export licenses of surveillance technologies to Saudi Arabia. Heavily scrutinize weapons transfers that could be used to limit basic rights such as freedom of assembly; Advocate for the release of dissidents and activists detained solely for peaceful criticism of Saudi authorities.

To Technology Companies

Halt sales of surveillance technologies to Saudi Arabia and halt existing contracts providing for ongoing training and technical support to ensure that these activities do not contribute to human rights violations; Provide transparency around past sales of surveillance technologies to Saudi Arabia; Investigate whether surveillance technologies sold to Saudi Arabia were used to spy on dissidents at home and abroad in violation of their terms of service and applicable human rights standards; Advocate for the release of dissidents and activists detained solely for peaceful criticism of Saudi authorities.

Methodology

Saudi authorities have not granted Human Rights Watch access to freely conduct in-country research since a research mission to the country in 2006. Human Rights Watch staff have visited Saudi Arabia six times since 2006, but most of these visits remained tightly circumscribed.

The report is based on telephone interviews with Saudi activists and dissidents since 2017, government statements, and court documents, as well as exhaustive reviews of Saudi local media outlets and social media. To protect those we interviewed from retaliation, we have withheld names or used pseudonyms for interviewees, unless they indicated a willingness to be named. Researchers informed all interviewees of the purpose of the interview and the ways in which the data would be used, and none of the interviewees received financial or other incentives for speaking with Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch compiled lists of detainees in Chapter IV from available evidence including interviews with Saudi human rights activists, official statements, and media reports. The lists are not exhaustive. Unless otherwise indicated, the latest available information indicates that individuals listed remain in detention.

On October 21, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the Saudi government outlining the general conclusions of our research. As of early November, Saudi authorities had not replied to Human Rights Watch.

I. Saudi Arabia Under New Leadership

Since the establishment of the modern-day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932 the country has been ruled as an absolute monarchy, first by its founder Abdulaziz Al Saud and then, following his death, by a succession of his sons. While maintaining absolute power over decision making, Saudi leaders historically exercised power in dialogue with informal yet powerful interest groups which maintained the ability to influence decisions. These groups included the country’s conservative Sunni religious establishment of state-affiliated and independent clerics, other members of the royal family, the security services, and influential members of the Saudi business community.[1]

The emergence of Mohammed bin Salman in early 2015 began to alter the status quo. Authorities moved to systematically curtail the influence of these groups and their ability to dictate decisions. In April 2016, Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers removed the powers of arrest from the country’s abusive religious police. In late 2017, as part of a sweeping crackdown on Saudi dissidents, authorities arrested prominent independent clerics critical of government policies.[2] In late 2017, authorities also rounded up tens of prominent members of the royal family, current and former government officials, and members of the business community as a part of a campaign against corruption.[3]

Beyond arrests, following his appointment as crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman and his father also meticulously moved to restructure the country’s traditional tools of repression, the internal security forces and the prosecution service, removing them from the jurisdiction of the interior ministry and placing them directly under the king, giving the royal court sole oversight over the agencies that conduct arrests and prosecutions.[4] Since his appointment as defense minister in 2015, Mohammed bin Salman has maintained control of the Saudi military. In November 2017 King Salman and Mohammed bin Salman removed control of the Saudi National Guard, an independent military force, from the late King Abdullah’s son Mutaib and jailed him for alleged corruption, effectively bringing all branches of the Saudi armed forces under royal court control.[5]

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 4/22 Human Rights Watch Page 17 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

When confronted in an interview with Bloomberg in October 2018 about Saudi Arabia’s mass arrests, Mohammed bin Salman justified them as necessary for enacting reforms in Saudi Arabia, stating:

… I believe that a lot of movements that happen around the world, they happen with a price. So for example if you look at the United States of America, when for example they wanted to free the slaves. What was the price? Civil war. It divided America for a few years. Thousands, tens of thousands of people died to win the freedom for the slaves…. So if there is a small price in that area, it’s better than paying a big debt to do that move…[6]

Consolidation of Power and Restructuring the Security Apparatus

When Salman bin Abdulaziz acceded to the Saudi throne in January 2015, Prince Mohammed, the first son from his third marriage, was a relative unknown. Unlike some of his older brothers, who included Sultan bin Salman, the first Arab and Muslim ever to fly in outer space, or Abdulaziz bin Salman, a major figure in Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, Prince Mohammed did not have a significant public profile prior to 2015 nor had he studied outside the country like many prominent royal family members.[7] Rather, he had quietly served his father, primarily as an advisor to Salman while he was Minister of Defense and governor of Riyadh. According to Karen Elliott House, Prince Mohammed became close to his father by remaining by his side while he grieved the deaths of his eldest and third eldest sons in 2001 and 2002 respectively, both from heart disease.[8]

Mohammed bin Salman burst onto the international arena in January 2015 when his father, immediately after becoming king, appointed him defense minister (Salman’s former position).[9] As defense minister he quickly established himself as less cautious than his predecessors, facilitating the launch of major military operations in Yemen in March 2015 by a coalition of countries. The military campaign aimed to roll back the advances of the Ansar Allah militant group (known as the Houthis), a Zaydi Shia group which had taken over most of Yemen, including the capital Sanaa, and expelled the country’s internationally-recognized government headed by President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

When King Salman took the throne, he promoted Mohammed bin Nayef, Mohammed bin Salman’s cousin and former interior minister who successfully led Saudi Arabia’s counter-insurgency efforts after 2004, as deputy crown prince behind Crown Prince Muqrin, who is Mohammed bin Salman’s uncle. Within three months, however, King Salman altered the line of succession, sacking Muqrin and elevating Mohammed bin Nayef to crown prince and Mohammed bin Salman to deputy crown prince.[10]

On June 17, 2017, however, the first major crack in the fragile arrangement appeared when King Salman issued a royal decree removing Othman al-Muhrij from his position as director of the country’s Public Security Directorate (police), a major agency within the Interior Ministry.[11] The same day, he also issued a royal decree severing the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution (BIP) from the Interior Ministry and re-establishing it as the Public Prosecution, an “independent” entity reporting directly to the king and headed by a new head prosecution official called the Attorney General. The royal decree stated that the change was “in [accordance] with the rules and principles of many countries of the world,” and based on “the necessity of separation between executive authority in the state and the bureau and its work since it is part of the judicial authority.”[12]

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 5/22 Human Rights Watch Page 18 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

The Saudi prosecution service is a major tool of Saudi repression and has been used to terrorize peaceful Saudi dissidents since 1988 through various means, including harassment, endless summonses for interrogation, arbitrary detention, and prosecution in blatantly unfair trials on spurious charges.[13] These practices accelerated and increased following the 2017 reorganization.

On June 21, within days of removing the prosecution service from Mohammed bin Nayef’s control, King Salman acted decisively by stripping him of all his official positions and appointing his son Mohammed bin Salman crown prince and presumptive future king.[14] To secure his elevation, Mohammed bin Salman reportedly garnered all but 3 votes in the country’s allegiance council, which decides on succession issues and is made up of 34 royal family members who are sons or represent the families of sons of Saudi Arabia’s founding King Abdulaziz.[15]

Citing US intelligence officials, the New York Times reported on June 28, 2017 that Mohammed bin Nayef had not only been deposed but also placed under house arrest at his Jeddah palace and prevented from leaving the country.[16] An informed source told Human Rights Watch that in addition to placing Mohammed bin Nayef under house arrest, authorities also purged many officials loyal to him from the security apparatus, including by detaining two high-level Interior Ministry officials. Another security official close to Mohammed bin Nayef who served as Saudi Arabia’s liaison to western intelligence agencies fled the country.[17] The source said that authorities banned immediate family members of Mohammed bin Nayef and these officials from travel and froze their bank accounts and assets. [18] The sidelining of Mohammed bin Nayef and his loyalists effectively removed the most serious royal challenger to Mohammed bin Salman.

Following the reduction of responsibilities of the Interior Ministry, King Salman appointed a new minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud, then 34, a relative of Mohammed bin Salman and son of the governor of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province.[21] The appointment of Prince Abdulaziz kept the interior minister portfolio with the Nayef faction of the royal family, which has held the position nearly continuously since 1975, but the prestige and power of the position had been drastically reduced.

A Plan to Transform the Economy

Mohammed bin Salman’s consolidation of power and mass arrests, which he labelled a “small price” in comparison with other “movements around the world,” allowed him to propose his own solutions to Saudi Arabia’s burgeoning economic crisis without hinderance or obstruction from Saudi Arabia’s traditional interest groups.

When King Abdullah died in January 2015, the country faced a major economic crisis as global oil prices were plummeting from a high of US$115 per barrel in June 2014 to $35 per barrel in February 2016, wiping out 77 to 88 percent of the country’s income.[23] In September 2014, the International Monetary Fund warned that without cuts to government spending Saudi Arabia would face a budget deficit in 2015 and the prospect of spending down its cash reserves.[24] The IMF’s prediction proved accurate – in late 2015 Saudi Arabia announced a budget deficit of 367 billion riyals ($97.9 billion).[25] Furthermore, despite years of policies aimed at overhauling the Saudi private sector to ensure more employment opportunities for Saudi citizens as opposed to foreign migrant workers, the Saudi youth unemployment rate in 2014 and 2015 remained around 30 percent, a worrying statistic given that two thirds of the Saudi population is under 30 years old.[26] In late 2015 a Brookings Institution op-ed warned that Saudi Arabia “faces an economic time bomb, which, if not defused, will have severe and possibly irreversible effects both nationally and internationally.”[27]

Following his appointment by his father to head the economic council, Prince Mohammed bin Salman quickly became the face of Saudi Arabia’s efforts to counter its economic woes and overhaul the country’s economy to make it less susceptible to oil price fluctuations. By early 2016, in response to a question from the Economist on whether Saudi Arabia was facing an economic crisis, Prince Mohammed stated as follows: https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 6/22 Human Rights Watch Page 19 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change We’re too far from it. We are further than the ’80s and the ’90s. We have the third-largest reserve in the world. We were able to increase our non-oil revenues this year alone by 29%. We were able to come out with more positive things than what most people thought about the economy of Saudi Arabia, regarding deficit and regarding spending. And we have clear programmes over the next five years. We announced some of them, and the rest we will announce in the near future.[28]

In April 2016, Mohammad bin Salman made good on his promise by announcing the country’s signature economic reform plan, Vision 2030, a sweeping development program aimed at diversifying the economy and creating a “global investment powerhouse.”[29] The plan lays out major strategic objectives for economic and social change accompanied by a host of programs to address issues such as housing, quality of life, pubic investment, financial sector development, and improving government performance, each with specified objectives and five-year milestones.[30]

Under Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia has also invested heavily in creating a local entertainment industry. In May 2016, authorities created the General Entertainment Authority, a new agency with plans to invest billions of dollars in the areas of music, entertainment, sports, art, and film, among others.[31] In 2018, authorities allowed movie theaters to open, with AMC, the US movie theatre chain, opening the first movie theater in Saudi Arabia in 35 years in Riyadh. In 2019 Saudi Arabia announced plans to invest $35 billion into building 2,500 movie screens across the country by 2020.[32] At the time of writing Saudi Arabia had hosted concerts major international artists such as Mariah Carey, Yanni, Andrea Bocelli, Janet Jackson, and 50 Cent.[33] The establishment of an entertainment industry has also provoked controversies, however, with the country’s Grand Mufti denouncing public entertainment and movie theaters in early 2017, the sacking of the General Entertainment Authority’s chairman in June 2018 following a controversial Russian circus performance in Riyadh featuring women wearing tight clothing, and rapper Nicki Minaj pulling out of the July 2019 Jeddah World Fest following pressure from human rights groups.[34]

The signature piece of Prince Mohammed’s economic overhaul plan is to generate revenue through an initial public offering (IPO) of a limited percentage of the country’s massive state oil company, Saudi Aramco, on an international stock exchange. While New York, London, and Hong Kong were initially considered as venues for the IPO, Reuters reported on October 29 that Saudi authorities would announce the start of the IPO in early November 2019 and float a one to two percent stake of the company on Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul stock exchange.[35]

Prince Mohammed’s efforts to attract international investment were temporarily hindered by the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018, with many international investors, financiers, and business leaders canceling their participation in Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative forum in late October 2018 as well as investors pulling their money out of the Saudi stock market.[36] By April 2019, however the Financial Times and the New York Times reported that many businesses had returned to invest in Saudi Arabia.[37] Nevertheless, whether Saudi Arabia can obtain enough capital through international investment to overhaul the country’s economy and meet the needs of Saudi Arabia’s rapidly growing society remains to be seen.

II. Due Process Violations

Saudi Arabia’s arrest campaigns since 2017 are notable for both the number of individuals targeted over a short period of time and the introduction of new ad hoc abusive practices that represent a significant deterioration in a country where the rule of law was already tenuous. These practices include the use of unofficial places of detention, extorting individuals to hand over assets or make statements in return for their release, and seeking the death penalty for “crimes” based on individuals’ peaceful speech and activities, among others.

Some of the ad hoc and abusive practices introduced since 2017 are associated with Mohammed bin Salman’s former advisor, Saud al-Qahtani, whom King Salman fired in October 2018 for his alleged role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.[38] Citing US intelligence sources, the New York Times reported that the crown prince authorized a secret campaign against Saudi dissidents over a year before Khashoggi’s murder, empowering his then-advisor, al-Qahtani, to oversee a team dubbed the “Rapid Intervention Group,” which conducted at least a dozen operations prior to the targeting of Khashoggi in October 2018.[39] One of the operations the report cites is the targeting of Saudi women’s rights activists, and the timeline of the group’s formation corresponds roughly with the beginning of the arrest campaigns in September 2017.[40] In mid-August 2017, just before the arrests began, al-Qahtani tweeted the following comment: “Do you think that I make things up with guidance? I am a trustworthy employee who carries out the orders of my masters the king and crown prince.”[41]

Despite a Public Prosecution statement alleging that al-Qahtani was involved in the Khashoggi affair, he is reportedly not one of the 11 individuals on trial for the murder, and the Wall Street Journal reported in February 2019 that al-Qahtani continues to serve as an informal advisor to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. [42] In October 2019, Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom Khalid bin Bandar stated that al-Qahtani remains under investigation and “in his home,” but that “no concrete evidence” has emerged regarding his involvement in the murder.[43]

Long-term Arbitrary Detention without Charge

Saudi Arabia has a long, notorious record of holding criminal suspects without charge or trial for months and even years. In May 2018, for example, Human Rights Watch analyzed data from a public online Saudi Interior Ministry prisoner database, which revealed that authorities at that time had detained 2,305 people who are under investigation for more than six months without referring them to a judge, while 1,875 were detained for more than a year and 251 for over three years while under investigation.[44]

Saudi Arabia’s Law of Criminal Procedure provides that a person may be detained without charge for a maximum of five days, renewable up to six months by an order of the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution (now Public Prosecution). After six months, the law requires that a detainee “be directly transferred to the competent court or be released.”[45]

Despite Saudi law, however, many individuals targeted in arrest campaigns since 2017 were held up to a year without charge, and the legal status of others remains unclear, particularly among some of those arrested in the November 2017 “corruption” crackdown. Those who remain in detention without clear legal status at this writing include Prince Turki bin Abdullah, the former governor of Riyadh and son of the late King Abdullah; Prince Turki’s associate Faisal al-Jarba; https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 7/22 Human Rights Watch Page 20 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman and his father, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad; a former planning minister, Adel al-Fakieh; and a construction mogul, Bakr Binladin.[46]

An informed source told Human Rights Watch that Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz and his father, both businessmen, have remained in detention without charge or trial since their arrests in January 2018. The source said that Prince Salman believes he was detained in retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of his detained family members after the November arrests. To the source’s knowledge, the authorities did not freeze Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz or his father’s assets or ask for financial settlements. They are in al-Ha’ir prison, south of Riyadh. Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz is married to a daughter of King Abdullah.[47]

Another informed source told Human Rights Watch that Faisal al-Jarba, a confidant of Prince Turki bin Abdullah, remains in detention without charge.[48] The Washington Post reported that in June, the Jordanian authorities had detained al-Jarba in Amman, where he had fled to seek safety, and eventually drove him to the Saudi border and handed him over to Saudi authorities. Prince Turki himself also remains in detention without charge, the source said.[49]

Authorities also detained and held a Saudi American medical doctor and popular television host, Walid al-Fitaihi, for 21 months without charge or trial. A family member told Human Rights Watch that authorities initially held al-Fitaihi in the Ritz-Carlton for two months before transferring him to al-Ha’ir prison south of Riyadh.[50] In late January 2019 the authorities transferred him again to Dhahban prison north of Jeddah. The family member said that in early March 2019 Saudi authorities raided the family’s home in Jeddah following a New York Times story alleging that al-Fitaihi was mistreated in detention.[51] He said that 15-16 men came to the house, bringing along al-Fitaihi himself wearing arm and leg shackles, and took all the computers and mobile phones in the house. The family member said he did not know why al-Fitaihi had been targeted for arrest. On August 1, 2019, Saudi authorities released al-Fitaihi pending the outcome of his trial. [52]

Those detained in the September 2017 arrest wave, including Salman al-Awda, Hassan Farhan al-Maliki, Ali al-Omari, and Awad al-Qarni, remained in detention without trial for nearly a year before authorities finally began to charge them and put them on trial in September 2018. Nevertheless, some trials have been marred by unexplained delays and postponements, including the trial of Salman al-Awda. Authorities took al-Awda to court for a scheduled hearing on July 28, 2019, but after waiting five hours the court abruptly postponed the hearing until November without explanation. Authorities then suddenly held a series of hearings in early October and scheduled the final hearing for October 10, but on October 10 they postponed the final hearing without explanation.[53]

Similarly, for Saudi women’s rights activists detained beginning in May 2018, authorities held them for 10 months before filing charges.[54] After three or four trial sessions in March and April, however, Saudi authorities do not appear to have convened any substantive hearings in their cases, for which there has been no explanation.[55] At the time of writing most of the women are free but banned from travel abroad pending the outcomes of their trials, but others, including Loujain al-Hathloul, Samar Badawi, Nouf Abdulaziz, and Nassima al-Sadah, remain in detention.

Extended detention without charge or trial or without an appearance before a judge is arbitrary and violates both Saudi law and international human rights standards.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has determined that detention is arbitrary when the detaining authority fails to observe, wholly or in part, the norms related to the right to due process, including for a prompt hearing before a judge following the initial detention.[56] Principle 11 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that a detainee must be “given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority,” and that a judicial or other authority should be empowered to review the decision to continue detention.[57]

The Arab Charter on Human Rights, which Saudi Arabia ratified in 2009, also guarantees the right of anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer of the law, and to have a trial within a reasonable time or be released. The charter says that, “Pre-trial detention shall in no case be the general rule.”[58]

Unofficial Places of Detention

In flagrant violation of Saudi law and international standards, Saudi authorities held some detainees in unofficial places of detention. The most high-profile incident was the detention of dozens of leading businesspeople, members of the royal family, and current and former government officials in Riyadh’s Ritz- Carlton hotel between November 2017 and February 2018.[59] In January 2018, a spokesperson from Marriott, which owns the Ritz-Carlton brand, said, “The hotel is operating under the directive of local authorities and not as a traditional hotel for the time being.”[60]

In addition, Saudi women activists detained beginning in May 2018 say that most of their mistreatment took place at an unofficial detention facility they called a “hotel” between May and August, after which they were moved to Dhahban prison. One source indicated that the women were taken to a room called an “officer’s guesthouse,” but the location of this room is unclear.[61] A family member of Loujain al-Hathloul told the New York Times that the women were held in what appeared to be an unused palace in Jeddah.[62]

Holding detainees at unofficial detention centers violates international standards. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its general comment on article 7of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stated that “…provisions should be made for detainees to be held in places officially recognized as places of detention and for their names and places of detention, as well as for the names of persons responsible for their detention, to be kept in registers readily available and accessible to those concerned, including relatives and friends.”[63]

Extorting Financial Assets or Public Statements in Return for Release

After detaining over 300 leading businesspeople, royal family members, and current and former government officials at Riyadh’s Ritz-Carlton hotel in November 2017, Saudi authorities reportedly pressured them to hand over assets to the state in return for their release outside of any clear or recognizable legal process.[64] https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 8/22 Human Rights Watch Page 21 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

Many reportedly made deals. Alwaleed al-Ibrahim, for example, the head of the MBC Group, reportedly turned over the control of the company to Saudi authorities and was released in January 2018.[65] In March 2019, Reuters reported that Bakr Binladin and two of his brothers detained in the Ritz-Carlton were forced to sell a significant percentage of the Binladin Group construction company to Istidama, a subsidiary of the Saudi Finance Ministry, and all were removed from the restructured company’s board.[66] Authorities released prominent businessman Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in January 2018 after he reached a financial settlement with Saudi authorities but remained in control of his company. He called his arrest a “misunderstanding.”[67] Likewise, authorities released prominent businessmen Amr Dabbagh and Mohammed al-Amoudi in January 2019 after they reportedly made deals, though the terms have not been made public.[68]

An informed source with close ties to six men held at the Ritz-Carlton between November 2017 and January 2018 told Human Rights Watch that authorities extorted financial settlements from detainees through physical coercion as well as freezing their bank accounts and banning their relatives from travel abroad. He said that some detainees were forced to transfer money held in bank accounts abroad into the country so that Saudi authorities could seize it, and that authorities only released some detainees after they signed IOUs pledging to pay specified sums of money.[69]

In addition to financial settlements, informed sources told Human Rights Watch that Saudi authorities also offered to release two prominent women’s rights activists in mid-2019 if they went on television to refute allegations that authorities had tortured them in detention. In August 2019, family members of Loujain al- Hathloul said that authorities had recently offered her release and an end to her trial if she signed a statement refuting the allegations of torture, which she initially agreed to do, but refused the offer after the authorities said she must make the statement on camera.[70] An informed source told Human Rights Watch that a high- level official with the Presidency of State Security visited another detained woman activist in July or August and offered to release her and provide financial compensation if she refuted the torture allegations on television.[71]

Arbitrary Travel Bans on Family Members

In addition to directly targeting Saudi citizens for arrest since September 2017, in some cases authorities have also punished their family members by imposing arbitrary bans on travel outside the country or freezing their assets and access to government services.

A family member of the detained cleric Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch that Saudi authorities imposed arbitrary travel bans on 17 members of his immediate family following the arrest. He said that the family only found out about the bans when another family member attempted to leave the country and was refused. He said the immigration officer told his family member that the royal court itself had imposed the travel bans for unspecified reasons.[72]

In addition, a family member of detained doctor Walid al-Fitaihi, who has US as well as Saudi nationality, told Human Rights Watch that following al-Fitaihi’s arrest Saudi authorities arbitrarily imposed travel bans on all members of al-Fitaihi’s immediate family, all of whom are also US citizens. He said that he went to the airport to attempt to travel out of the country several times in 2018 but was stopped each time after a fingerprint scan at the immigration checkpoint. Officials there did not give him an explanation for the ban.[73]

A source close to a former Saudi intelligence official purged alongside Mohammed bin Nayef told Human Rights Watch that Saudi authorities banned two of his children from travel abroad and froze all of their financial assets inside the country.[74] He also said that he has spoken with former detainees who were permitted to travel abroad but only on condition that they leave a close family member behind as collateral to ensure their return.[75]

Saudi human rights activists told Human Rights Watch that authorities also imposed arbitrary travel bans on family members of prominent women’s rights activists following their detentions in May 2018.[76]

In arbitrarily imposing the travel bans on family members of detainees, the Ministry of Interior appears to have broken Saudi law. Aside from a judicial ruling by a court, the interior minister may impose bans “for defined reasons related to security and for a known period” and must notify those banned within one week of the ban.[77] For family members of detainees, in no case did the ministry inform those on whom they imposed travel bans of the bans themselves or the specific reasons for subjecting them to the bans.

Arbitrary travel bans violate international human rights law which guarantees everyone the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.[78]

Seeking the Death Penalty for Peaceful Political Affiliation and Ideas

Saudi Arabia carries out more executions per year than all but a few countries. Since 2014, Saudi Arabia has executed over 860 individuals, mostly for murder, violent acts, and nonviolent drug crimes.[79] Outside of those executed for drug crimes, capital trials involved accusations of acts of violence in nearly all cases. In 2018, however, Saudi prosecutors began seeking the death penalty against individuals solely based on their peaceful political affiliations or ideas.

Those currently facing capital trials absent any allegation of violence include the prominent cleric Salman al-Awda. In September 2018, local Saudi media outlets printed the first five of al-Awda’s charges, and Human Rights Watch reviewed the others from a copy of the court’s charge sheet it obtained.[80] The initial charges are mostly related to his alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations supposedly connected to it. One such organization listed in the charge sheet, the International Union of Muslim Scholars, was not named as a terrorist organization by Saudi authorities until November 20, 2018, over two months after al-Awda’s arrest.[81]

The first charge against al-Awda reads:

Corrupting the land by repeatedly endeavoring to shake the structure of the nation and bring about civil strife; inflaming society against the rulers and stirring up unrest; and connection to characters and organizations and holding meetings and conferences inside and outside the kingdom to enact the agenda of a terrorist organization against the nation and its rulers.[82] https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 9/22 Human Rights Watch Page 22 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

Multiple charges relate to his public solidarity with imprisoned dissidents, opposing the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar in mid-2017, and alleged ties to the Qatari government. Other charges include having “a suspicious relationship” with the former Gaddafi government in Libya, publicly opposing Saudi Arabia’s hosting of former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, “mocking governmental achievements,” and “offending patriotism and loyalty to the government and the country…”[83]

Another detainee against whom Saudi authorities are seeking the death penalty is Hassan Farhan al-Maliki, a reformist religious thinker. Human Rights Watch reviewed al-Maliki’s charge sheet, which consists of 14 charges, nearly all with no resemblance to recognized crimes.[84] The first two charges relate to his peaceful expression of his religious opinions about the veracity of certain sayings of the prophet and his criticism of several seventh century Islamic figures. Other charges include “insulting the country’s rulers and the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars, and describing them as extremist,” and accusing Gulf countries of supporting the Islamic State (also known as ISIS).[85]

Prosecutors also charged al-Maliki with praising Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and “having sympathy” for the Houthi group in Yemen, and expressing his religious views in television interviews, attending discussion groups in Saudi Arabia, writing books and studies and publishing them outside of Saudi Arabia, possession of banned books, defaming a Kuwaiti man by accusing him on Twitter of supporting ISIS, and violating the country’s notorious cybercrime law.[86]

The charge sheet also accuses al-Maliki of crossing illegally from Saudi Arabia into northern Yemen for research about his family origins and history in 2001, after Saudi authorities had banned al-Maliki from travel abroad. Saudi Arabia does not have a comprehensive written penal code and only a limited number of written criminal regulations. Charges not based on a written text, which include all but one of al-Maliki’s, do not have a statute of limitation.[87]

Evidence cited by prosecutors in the charge sheet consisted entirely of al-Maliki’s alleged confession, his tweets, and material confiscated from his home and electronic devices. It says that he allegedly confessed to “calling for freedom of belief, and that it is the right of any person to adopt beliefs that he sees as correct, and it is not permitted to restrict these [beliefs] or impose certain beliefs,” as well as his denial that the crime of apostacy should be punishable by death, “seeing that there is no truth to it legally.” He also allegedly confessed to saying that “those [clerics] who ban singing or music in all its forms are extremists, as there is no evidence for banning it and that the prophet [peace be upon him] listened to it.”[88]

International standards, including the Arab Charter on Human Rights, ratified by Saudi Arabia, require countries that retain the death penalty to use it only for the “most serious crimes,” and in exceptional circumstances. In 2012, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions stated that where used, the death penalty should be limited to cases in which a person is intentionally killed and not used to punish drug-related offenses.

Cyber Spying and Online Harassment

In addition to the post-2017 arrest waves, Saudi Arabia has reportedly deployed commercially available surveillance technologies to hack into the online accounts of government critics and dissidents. Citizen Lab, an academic research center based in Canada, concluded with “high confidence” that in 2018 the mobile phone of Omar Abdulaziz, a prominent Saudi activists based in Canada, was targeted and infected with spyware known as Pegasus, which is produced and sold by the Israeli technology firm NSO group.[89] According to Citizen Lab, “Once a phone is infected [with Pegasus spyware], the customer has full access to a victim’s personal files, such as chats, emails, and photos. They can even surreptitiously use the phone’s microphones and cameras to view and eavesdrop on their targets.”[90]

In addition to Abdulaziz, other Saudis abroad have alleged that the Saudi government targeted them with cyberattacks using Pegasus in recent years, including an unnamed researcher for Amnesty International, UK-based Saudi human rights activist Yahya Assiri, and UK-based Saudi comedian and dissident Ghanim al- Masarir .[91]

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius revealed in March 2019 that Saudi officials acquired spyware tools from NSO Group, but that the company had “frozen new requests from the kingdom” over concerns that it may have been “misused.”[92] In response to growing international criticism over its sales of spyware to abusive governments, NSO group announced a new Human Rights Policy in September 2019, pledging to “identify, prevent and mitigate the risk of adverse human rights impact” related to the use of its spyware and surveillance products.[93]

Saudi officials have openly used Twitter to harass and target dissidents. On August 17, 2017, Saud al-Qahtani himself started the hashtag “#The_Black_List” in which he called on Saudis to suggest online critics to target.[94] Before his dismissal in October 2018, al-Qahtani also served as the director of the Saudi Federation for Cyber Security and Programming, a governmental organization that seeks to “build national and professional capabilities in the fields of cyber security and programming in line with established and internationally recognized practices and standards.”[95]

In addition, rumors have surfaced among Saudi dissidents that Saudi authorities may have the capability of unmasking anonymous Twitter users. The rumors appear driven in part by a Tweet by al-Qahtani from August 18, 2017, in which he states: “Does a pseudonym protect you from #the_black_list? No 1) States have a method to learn the owner of the pseudonym 2) the IP address can be learned using a number of methods 3) a secret I will not say.”[96]

More broadly, Saudi Arabia’s targeting of critics has been a growing problem, including online critics on Twitter, whom authorities have arrested or intimidated into silence.[97]

III. Torture Allegations

In addition to the mass arrest campaigns of dissidents since Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince in June 2017, information from Saudi activists and media reports indicates that incidents of torture and mistreatment in detention have also increased.

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 10/22 Human Rights Watch Page 23 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

In March 2019, the Guardian newspaper reported that it had received several leaked medical reports following examinations of at least 60 detainees commissioned by King Salman. The medical reports reportedly noted that detainees were suffering from ailments including “malnutrition, cuts, bruises and burns.”[98] Detainees examined included Adel Banaemah, Mohammed Al Bisher, Fahad al-Sunaidi, Zuhair Kutbi, Abdulaziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, Yasser al-Ayyaf, as well as prominent women’s rights activists Samar Badawi, Hatoon al-Fassi, and Abeer Namankani.[99]

The most high-profile allegations of torture and mistreatment that have come to light stem from the Ritz-Carlton detentions between November 2017 and February 2018 and the allegations of torture by women’s rights advocates from May to August 2018.

Alleged Torture of Women’s Rights Advocates

In November 2018, Human Rights Watch obtained credible evidence that Saudi authorities tortured at least four women activists in detention. The torture included electric shocks, whippings, waterboarding, and sexual harassment and assault including touching and groping.[100]

The treatment of prominent activist Loujain al-Hathloul was described in detail by her sister in an article for the New York Times in January 2019. According to her sister, “[Loujain] said she had been held in solitary confinement, beaten, waterboarded, given electric shocks, sexually harassed and threatened with rape and murder. My parents then saw that her thighs were blackened by bruises.”[101] Other human rights groups have reported additional allegations, including prolonged solitary confinement of the women, displaying naked photographs of one of the women during interrogation, beatings on the feet (falaka or bastinado), and forcing two detainees to kiss each other on the lips.[102]

Around December 2018, following reporting of the allegations, authorities transferred some of the women to al-Ha’ir Prison in Riyadh, others to Dammam Prison in Dammam, while some remain in Dhahban Prison.[105] Western media outlets have reported that Saudi authorities opened two investigations into the torture allegations by women’s rights advocates, one by Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Commission, a government agency, and one by Saudi Arabia’s Public Prosecutor, which reports directly to the royal court.[106]

On March 1, 2019, Saudi Arabia’s Public Prosecution announced that it would refer the women to trial. A representative of the prosecution office denied the torture allegations, telling media that the allegations had been investigated by the Public Prosecution and Human Rights Commission and found to be unsubstantiated.[107]

Ritz-Carlton Allegations

In March 2018, the New York Times reported that Saudi authorities used physical abuse to coerce so-called corruption detainees to hand over assets following their detention in the Ritz-Carton hold in early November 2017. The report stated that at least 17 people required hospitalization for abuse in detention, including one, Maj. Gen. Ali al-Qahtani, an aide to Prince Turki bin Abdullah, who later died in detention. The report cited a person who saw the body, which had signs of physical abuse including a twisted neck and burns that appeared to be from electric shocks.[108]

The Times expanded on these initial allegations in November 2018, reporting that the mistreatment included “beatings, electrical shocks and suspension upside down for long periods.” The November report also said that some former detainees had shown their family members lasting scars from beatings and electric shocks, and in one case a photo of the bruises and scars was shared with the Times.[109]

The Times also reported that among those tortured in the Ritz-Carlton was medical doctor Walid al-Fitaihi who holds both Saudi and American nationality. During an interrogation session which he later reportedly recounted to friend, “he was slapped, blindfolded, stripped to his underwear and bound to a chair. He was shocked with electricity in what appears to have been a single session of torture that lasted about an hour.”[110]

The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2018 that another detainee, Hani Khoja, a former employee of the management consulting firm McKinsey and Company, was repeatedly beaten by Saudi authorities at the Ritz-Carlton. [111] Authorities eventually released Khoja in January 2019.[112]

IV. Comprehensive List of Detainees

After Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince, the Saudi authorities initiated a series of arrest campaigns which appeared aimed at stamping out all domestic opposition to his policies and reforms. The arrests targeted clerics, intellectuals, journalists, businesspeople, royal family members, high-level government officials, and women’s rights advocates.

Human Rights Watch compiled lists of detainees from available evidence including interviews with Saudi human rights activists, official statements, and media reports. The lists are not exhaustive. Unless otherwise indicated, the latest available information indicates that individuals listed remain in detention.

Human Rights Watch does not endorse all the views expressed by individuals mentioned in this report. These views, which in some cases may be offensive or objectionable, nevertheless do not amount to speech that Saudi Arabia can lawfully restrict without violating international human rights standards.

Arrests of Dissidents Beginning in September 2017 https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 11/22 Human Rights Watch Page 24 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

In September 2017, three months after Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince, Saudi authorities launched a sweeping arrest campaign targeting dozens of prominent Saudis including clerics, academics, intellectuals, journalists, and human rights activists.

Among the individuals arrested were popular clerics Salman al-Awda, Awad al-Qarni, and Ali al-Omari. Al-Awda and al-Qarni were members of the “Sahwa Movement” in the early 1990s, which called for reforms in Saudi Arabia including an elected parliament and constitution. Both maintain large followings on social media platforms. Saudi authorities also targeted individuals such as Essam al-Zamil, an economist who had called into question Saudi projections of revenue from the Aramco initial public offering (IPO), as well as Mustafa al-Hasan, an academic, Abdullah Al-Malki, a reformist academic and writer, Hassan al- Maliki, a religious reformist, Khalid al-Alkami, a journalist, and dozens of other clerics including Ibrahim al-Nasser, and Ibrahim al-Fares.[113] Authorities imprisoned human rights activists Abdulaziz al-Shubaily and Issa al-Hamid around the same time, after both had recently lost appeals of convictions for their human rights work following unfair trials.[114]

A September 12 Saudi Press Agency announcement confirmed the arrests, stating that the Presidency of State Security, the country’s new counterterrorism agency, had worked “to monitor the intelligence activities of a group of people for the benefit of foreign parties against the security of the kingdom and its interests, methodology, capabilities, and social peace in order to stir up sedition and prejudice national unity.” It said the group included Saudis and foreigners.[115]

Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar.[116] A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn’t complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar.[117]

Detainee List

2017

1. Awad al-Qarni, preacher, university professor, and author, detained in September 2017, on trial, public prosecution seeking the death penalty for alleged membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. 2. Ali al-Omari, imam, author, detained in September 2017, on trial, public prosecution seeking the death penalty for alleged membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. 3. Salman al-Awda, sheikh, detained in September 2017, on trial, public prosecution seeking the death penalty for alleged membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. 4. Ali Badahdah, imam, university professor, detained in September 2017. 5. Idris Abkar, imam, detained in September 2017. 6. Khaled al-Shannar, preacher, detained in September 2017. 7. Adel Bana’mah, preacher, academic, detained in September 2017. 8. Khalid al-Mhawesh, academic and public figure, detained in September 2017. 9. Abdullah al-Sweilem, imam, detained in September 2017. 10. Abdulaziz al-Shubaily, founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), detained in September 2017, serving eight-year prison sentence. 11. Issa al-Hamid, founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), detained in September 2017, serving nine-year prison sentence. 12. Abdul Aziz Al Abdullatif, sheikh, detained in September 2017, serving five-year prison sentence following 2018 conviction. 13. Mustafa al-Hasan, academic scholar and novelist, detained in September 2017. 14. Ziad Bin Naheet, poet, detained in September 2017 and released in December 2017. 15. Essam al-Zamel, economic researcher and writer, detained in September 2017, on trial for alleged membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. 16. Abdullah al-Maliki, academic, detained in September 2017. 17. Khalid al-Awda, brother of Salman al-Awda, detained in September 2017. 18. Abd al-Muhsin al-Ahmad, doctor, preacher, university professor, detained in September 2017. 19. Walid al-Huwairini, Islamic scholar, detained in September 2017. 20. Yusuf al-Ahmad, preacher, university professor, detained in September 2017. 21. Ibrahim al-Fares, preacher, university assistant professor, detained in September 2017. 22. Ibrahim al-Naser, preacher, detained in September 2017. 23. Muhammad al-Habdan, imam, detained in September 2017. 24. Ghorm al-Bishi, preacher, detained in September 2017. 25. Mohammed bin Abdel Aziz al-Khodeiri, preacher, detained in September 2017. 26. Mohammed Musa al-Shareef, imam, detained in September 2017. 27. Ibrahim al-Harithi, sheikh, detained in September 2017. 28. Hassan Farhan al-Maliki, preacher, detained in September 2017, on trial facing charges related to his religious ideas. 29. Al-Abbas al-Maliki, son of the Islamic scholar Hasan al-Maliki, detained in October 2017. 30. Khaled al-Ajimi, university professor, detained in September 2017. 31. Fahd al-Snaidy, media figure, detained in September 2017, on trial beginning in September 2018. 32. Mohammad al-Khudairi, university professor, detained in September 2017. 33. Mohammad al-Shannar, preacher, detained in September 2017, on trial beginning in September 2018. 34. Hamood al-Omari, preacher, detained in September 2017. 35. Ibrahim Hael al-Yamani, university professor and a former mufti, detained in September 2017. 36. Muhammad Saleh al-Munajid, scholar and founder of website Islamqa.info, detained in September 2017. 37. Mousa al-Ghanami, preacher, detained in September 2017. 38. Muhamad al-Barrak, university professor, detained in September 2017. 39. Sami Abdulaziz al-Majid, university professor, detained in September 2017. 40. Fawwaz al-Ghaslan, poet, detained in September 2017, released in May 2019. 41. Habib bin Ma’laa al-Mutairi, university professor and a member of the National Society for Human Rights, detained in October 2017. 42. Razin bin Mohammad al-Razin, university professor, detained in September 2017. 43. Mohammed bin Saud al-Bisher, university professor, detained in October 2017. 44. Sa’ad bin Matar al-Otaibi, teaching assistant in university, detained in September 2017. 45. Mubarak bin Zuair, teaching assistant in university, detained in October 2017. 46. Sheikh Jamal al-Najim, university professor, detained in October 2017, on trial. 47. Malik al-Ahmed, university professor and media consultant, detained in September 2017. 48. Saeed bin Farwa, preacher, detained in September 2017. 49. Sheikh Sami al-Ghayheb, director of the Unit to Combat Extortion Crimes in the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, detained in October 2017. 50. Salim al-Deeni, undersecretary of the Ministry of Labor and Social Development, detained in September 2017. 51. Ahmed al-Sowayan, president of the Islamic Press Association, detained in September 2017. https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 12/22 Human Rights Watch Page 25 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change 52. Ali Abu al-Hasan, pedagogue and media figure, detained in September 2017. 53. Khalid al-Alkami, writer and journalist, detained in September 2017. 54. Zayed al-Banawi, retired colonel, detained in October 2017. 55. Sami al-Thobaiti, journalist, detained in September 2017. 56. Rabea Hafiz, chanter, detained in September 2017. 57. Musa’ed bin Hamad al-Kathairi, media figure, detained in September 2017. 58. Ali al-Jahni, university professor, detained in September 2017. 59. Yousef al-Mahous, imam, dean of Hatwa College of Science and Human Studies at Majmaah University, detained in September 2017. 60. Yousef Ahmad al-Qasem, Islamic jurisprudence professor, member of the Higher Judicial Institute at Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University, detained in September 2017. 61. Abdullatif al-Hussein, university professor, detained in October 2017. 62. Abdulaziz al-Zahrani, university professor, detained in September 2017. 63. Sonhat al-Otaibi, business consultant, detained in September 2017, released temporarily in April 2019. 64. Munawer al-Noub al-Abdali, sheikh, detained in September 2017. 65. Nayef al-Sahafi, preacher, detained in September 2017. 66. Mohammad bin Saleh al-Moqbel, sheikh, president of Quran memorization society, detained in September 2017. 67. Mohammad al-Dosari, judge, detained in September 2017, released. 68. Omar al-Haseen, judge, detained in September 2017, released. 69. Sultan bin Hanas bin Shaddah, detained in September 2017, released. 70. Bandar al-Tuwaijiri, judge, detained in September 2017, released. 71. Abdullatif bin Abdulaziz Al-Abdallatif, judge, detained in September 2017, released. 72. Turki bin Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, judge, detained in September 2017, released. 73. Ahmad al-Amira, undersecretary of the Justice Ministry, detained in September 2017. 74. Yousef al-Faraj, office director of the minister of justice, detained in September 2017. 75. Owaid bin Hmood al-Atwi, former university professor, Vice President of the Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at Tabuk University, detained in September 2017, released. 76. Rashed al-Shehri, head of the Supreme Court in Jeddah, detained in September 2017. 77. Saud bin Ghosn, sheikh, detained in September 2017. 78. Jamil Farsi, writer, detained in September 2017. 79. Yousef al-Molhem, online activist, satirist, detained in September 2017. 80. Fayez bin Damekh, media figure, detained in September 2017. 81. Saad al-Breik, sheikh, detained in November 2017. 82. Ruqayya al-Moharib, university professor, detained in September 2017, released in March 2019. 83. Noora al-Saad, academic, detained in September 2017, released.

2018

84. Ahmad al-Rashid, lawyer, detained in April 2018. 85. Abdullah al-Mofleh, novelist, online activist, detained in September 2018. 86. Sultan al-Jumeiri, author, detained in September 2018. 87. Ahmad Abdulaziz al-Zahrani, brother of the activist Omar Abdulaziz al-Zahrani, detained in August 2018. 88. Abdulmajid Abdulaziz al-Zahrani, brother of activist Omar Abdulaziz al-Zahrani, detained in August 2018. 89. Safar al-Hawali, prominent Islamic scholar, detained in July 2018. 90. Abdulrahman al-Hawali, son of Safar al-Hawali, detained in July 2018. 91. Abdullah al-Hawali, son of Safar al-Hawali, detained in July 2018. 92. Ibrahim al-Hawali, son of Safar al-Hawali, detained in July 2018, released in February 2019. 93. Abdulrahim al-Hawali, son of Safar al-Hawali, detained in July 2018. 94. Saadallah al-Hawali, brother of Safar al-Hawali, detained in July 2018. 95. Ahmad bin Ali al-Hawali, a relative of Safar al-Hawali, detained in August 2018. 96. Abdullah bin Ali al-Hawali, a relative of Safar al-Hawali, detained in September 2018. 97. Ismail Hassan, secretary of Safar al-Hawali, August 2018. 98. Ahmad al-Amari, sheikh, former dean of the Quran Faculty in the Islamic University of Medina, detained in September 2018 and died in custody in January 2019. 99. Saleh Al Taleb, sheikh, imam at the Grand Mosque, detained in August 2018. 100. Ali bin Abbar al-Za’al, poet, tribal Sheikh, detained in May 2018, released in February 2019. 101. Nasser al-Omar, sheikh, former university professor, detained in August 2018. 102. Yasser Abdullah al-Ayyaf, activist, detained summer 2018. 103. Abdulaziz al-Fawzan, preacher, professor at the Higher Judicial Institute at the Imam Mohammed bin Saud university, detained in July 2018. 104. Muhammad al-Duhas al-Otaibi, preacher, teacher at the Institute of the Holy Mosque of Mecca, detained in July 2018, released in July 2019. 105. Ali bin Saeed al-Ghaamdi, preacher, detained in July 2018, released in February 2019 due to deteriorating health conditions. 106. Mohammed al-Bajadi, founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), detained in May 2018. 107. Mamdouh al-Harbi, preacher, detained in August 2018, released in January 2019. 108. Turki al-Jaser, journalist, detained in March 2018. 109. Ayda al-Ghamidi, mother of the activist Abdullah al-Ghamidi who lives in exile, detained in March 2018. 110. Adel al-Ghamidi, brother of the activist Abdullah al-Ghamidi who lives in exile, detained in March 2018. 111. Sultan al-Ghamidi, brother of the activist Abdullah al-Ghamidi who lives in exile, detained in March 2018. 112. Ahmed Bathaf, university professor, detained in May 2018. 113. Salah al-Shehi, journalist, detained in January 2018, sentenced to five years in prison. 114. Turki al-Dosari, media figure, detained in April 2018. 115. Bader bin Ali al-Otaibi, sheikh, detained in April 2018, released in January 2019. 116. Abdul Aziz al-Mehdi, comedian, detained in June 2018, released in January 2019. 117. Nawwaf Talal al-Rasheed, poet, dual Qatari and Saudi citizen, detained in May 2018, released in April 2019. 118. Omar al-Saeed, member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), detained again in June 2018. 119. Hussein Abu al-Rahha, artist, detained in November 2018. 120. Khaled bin Suleiman al-Omair, political activist, detained in July 2018. 121. Marwan al-Mreesi, Yemeni journalist, detained in June 2018. 122. Ali al-Shammari, poet, detained in June 2018. 123. Abdulrahman al-Sahdan, employee at the Saudi Red Crescent, detained in March 2018. 124. Abdulrahman Mohammad al-Arifi, son of Islamic scholar Mohammad al-Arifi, detained in December 2018. 125. Sheikh Bandar Baleelah, imam at the Grand Mosque, detained and released in September 2018. 126. Noha al-Balawi, online activist, detained in January 2018, on trial.

2019

127. Abdullatif Hussein al-Nasser, sheikh, detained in June 2019. 128. Faisal bin Sultan bin Jahjaah bin Hameed, tribal Sheikh, detained in October 2019. https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 13/22 Human Rights Watch Page 26 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change 129. Abdulaziz al-Awda, activist and a relative of Salman al-Awda, detained in October 2019. 130. Abdulrahman al-Mahmoud, sheikh and former member of the teaching committee at Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University, detained in October 2019. 131. Omar al-Moqbal, sheikh, detained in October 2019. November 2017 “Corruption” Arrests

On the evening of November 4, 2017 the Saudi Press Agency announced a royal decree establishing a high-level anticorruption committee headed by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.[118] Later in the evening, the Saudi-owned news channel Al Arabiya began reporting that Saudi authorities were conducting mass detentions of prominent individuals allegedly involved in corruption.[119]

Those detained included Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an influential businessman and chairman of Kingdom Holding Company. In addition to Alwaleed bin Talal, the detainees included a former national guard minister, Prince Mutib bin Abdullah; a former finance minister, Ibrahim al-Assaf, a former planning minister, Adel Fakih; a former Riyadh governor, Prince Turki bin Abdullah; a former royal court chief, Khalid al-Tuwaijri, Bakr Binladin, the chairman of the Saudi Binladin Group; and Alwaleed al-Ibrahim, owner of the MBC television network.

Following the arrests, three government officials told Reuters that the detainees included 11 princes, four ministers, dozens of former ministers, and several influential businessmen and media executives. The same report indicated that authorities were holding the detainees at the five-star Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh. [120]

While in detention at the Ritz-Carlton, authorities pressured detainees to hand over assets to the state in exchange for their release outside of any recognizable legal process, and many reportedly made deals.[121] In March 2018, the New York Times reported that Saudi authorities used physical abuse to coerce detainees to hand over assets, stating that at least 17 detainees required hospitalization following this abuse.[122]

On January 31, the Saudi Press Agency released a statement by the royal court saying that the anti-corruption committee, led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, had “concluded its tasks” after summoning 381 people to give evidence.[123] The statement said that those not indicted on corruption charges had been released, while 87 had agreed to settlements and 56 had been refused settlements and remained in custody “to continue the investigations process.” The statement said that the authorities had referred eight others to the public prosecutor after they refused to settle. The statement concluded that “more than SR400 billion (US$107 billion) was retrieved to the state treasury in the form of real estate, companies, cash, and other assets.”[124] The Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh resumed normal business operations in early February 2018.[125]

An informed source close to six of the detainees held in the Ritz-Carlton told Human Rights Watch that even though most of the detainees reached settlements and were released, they remain tightly monitored by authorities, even those who returned to their previous positions or portions of their companies or financial assets. He said that in some cases authorities have forced former detainees to involuntarily return to their former companies or positions or compel them to accept new roles.[126]

Detainee List

1. Adel Fakih, former minister of economy and planning, detained in November 2017. 2. Waleed al-Ibrahim, chairman of MBC group, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 3. Amr al-Dabbagh, chairman of al-Dabbagh Group and former head of the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 4. Bakr Binladin, chairman of Binladin Group, detained in November 2017. 5. Saad Binladin, Binladin Group, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 6. Saleh Binladin, Binladin Group, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 7. Fawaz Alhokair, businessman, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 8. Hani Khoja, businessman, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 9. Ibrahim al-Assaf, minister, detained and released in November 2017. 10. Mohammed al-Jasser, former Minister of Economy and Planning, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 11. Sultan al-Dweish, executive director of Future Investment, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 12. Ibrahim al-Muaqel, headed the Human Resources Development Fund, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 13. Abdulrahman Fakih, businessman, detained in November 2017. 14. Hamed al-Dweili`, former deputy minister, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 15. Khalid al-Baltan, businessman, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 16. Rami al-Nuaimi, son of former minister, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 17. Khalid Abdullah al-Molhem, businessman, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 18. Khalid al-Tuwaijri, former head of the Saudi Royal Court, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 19. Loay Nazer, son of former Planning Minister Hisham Nazer, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 20. Major General Ali al-Qahtani, Saudi military officer and associate of Prince Turki bin Abdullah, detained in November 2017, died in custody. 21. Mansour al-Balawi, former chairman of al-Ettihad sports club, detained in November 2017. 22. Mohammad Hussein al-Amoudi, Saudi-Ethiopian businessman, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 23. Mohammed al-Tobaishi, former head of protocol of the Royal Court, detained and released in November 2017. 24. Nasser bin Aqeel al-Tayyar, founder of Al Tayyar Travel, detained in November 2017. 25. Osama al-Bar, former mayor of Mecca province, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 26. Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud, detained in January 2018. 27. Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud, detained in January 2018. 28. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, businessman and member of the Saudi royal court, detained in November 2017, released in January 2018. 29. Prince Abdulaziz bin Fahad, former minister, detained in November 2017, released in 2018. 30. Prince Fahd bin Abdullah bin Mohammad Al Saud, former deputy defense minister, former commander of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces and member of House of Saud, detained in November 2017. 31. Prince Faisal bin Abdullah, son of late King Abdullah, former head of the Saudi Red Crescent Authority, detained in November 2017, released in December 2017. 32. Prince Khalid bin Talal, businessman, brother of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, detained in November 2017, released in November 2018. 33. Prince Mishaal bin Abdullah, son of King Abdullah and former governor of Mecca province, detained in November 2017, released in December 2017. https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 14/22 Human Rights Watch Page 27 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change 34. Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah al-Saud, son of the late King Abdullah and former minister of the Saudi National Guard, detained and released in November 2017. 35. Prince Turki bin Abdullah, son of the late King Abdullah, former governor of Riyadh province, detained in November 2017. 36. Faisal al-Jarba, associate of Prince Turki bin Abdullah, detained in November 2018. 37. Prince Turki bin Nasser, former military official, detained in November 2017,released in January 2018. 38. Saleh Kamal, businessman, detained in November 2017, released in December 2017. 39. Sami al-Zuhaibi, consultant, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 40. Sami Baroum, businessman, detained in November 2017, released in January 2019. 41. Saud al-Daweesh, former CEO of Saudi Telecom company, detained in November 2017,released in December 2017. 42. Walid al-Fitaihi, doctor and public figure, detained in November 2017, released in August 2019, on trial. 43. Zuhair Fayez, businessman, detained in November 2017. 44. Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammad al-Sultan, Commander of the Royal Saudi Navy, detained in November 2017. Detention of Women’s Rights Advocates

In May 2018, just weeks before Saudi authorities lifted the ban on women driving on June 24, Saudi authorities opened a large-scale coordinated crackdown against the country’s women’s rights movement. Authorities initially arrested at least 13 prominent women’s rights activists and accused several of them of grave crimes that appear to be directly related to their activism. Government-aligned media outlets carried out an alarming campaign against them, branding them “traitors.”[127]

In November 2018, Human Rights Watch obtained credible evidence that Saudi authorities tortured at least four of the detained women activists while holding them at an unofficial detention facility called a “hotel” or “officer’s guesthouse,” presumably in Jeddah, between May and August. The torture included electric shocks, whippings, and sexual harassment and assault including touching and groping.[128]

On March 1, 2019, Saudi Arabia announced that the detained women’s rights advocates would face charges.[129] A Public Prosecution statement described the detainees as undertaking “coordinated and organized activities … that aim to undermine the Kingdom’s security, stability, and national unity.”[130] A Public Prosecution spokesperson also told local media on March 1 that the Saudi Human Rights Commission and National Society for Human Rights had investigated the torture claims and found no evidence to support them.[131]

On March 13, Saudi Arabia opened individual trials of 10 women before the Riyadh Criminal Court, and the women learned their charges for the first time. The women on trial included nine women activists including Loujain al-Hathloul, Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, Mayaa al-Zahrani, Hatoon al-Fassi, Shaden al- Onaizi, Amal al-Harbi, Abeer Namankani, Maysa al-Manea, as well as Roqaya al-Muhareb, an Islamist detainee originally arrested during a separate crackdown in September 2017.[132]

Informed sources who reviewed the prosecutor’s written charge sheets have described to Human Rights Watch the content of charges for three of the detainees, nearly all of which are related to peaceful human rights work, including promoting women’s rights and calling for an end to Saudi Arabia’s discriminatory male guardianship system. The sources said that charges against the other women are similar. Prosecutors also accused the women of sharing information about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia with journalists based in Saudi Arabia, diplomats, and international human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, deeming such contacts a criminal offense.[133]

On March 28, 2019, authorities allowed the “temporary release” of Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, and Roqaya al-Muhareb.[134] On May 3, Hatoon al-Fassi, Shaden al-Onaizi, Amal al-Harbi, Abeer Namankani, and Maysa al-Manea were also “temporarily released.”[135] Loujain al-Hathloul and Mayaa al-Zahrani remain in detention for unknown reasons.

Three other prominent women’s rights activists, Samar Badawi, Nour Abdulaziz, and Nassema al-Sadah, were finally brought to trial in Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court on June 27, but the charges against them have not been made public.[136]

The May 2018 arrests also included men connected to the women’s rights movement, including lawyer Ibrahim al-Modaimeegh, activist Mohammad al-Rabea, and businessman Abdulaziz al-Mashal. Al-Modaimeegh and al-Mashal were released in December and January respectively, but al-Rabea remains in detention apparently without charge.[137]

Detainee List

1. Nouf Abdelaziz, writer and women’s rights activist, detained on June 6, 2018, on trial. 2. Mayaa al-Zahrani, women’s rights activist, detained on June 10, 2018. 3. Hatoon al-Fassi, women’s rights activist, contributor to al-Riyadh newspaper, associate professor at King Saud University, detained on June 21, 2018, released in May 2019. 4. Loujain al-Hathloul, women’s rights activist, detained on May 15, 2018, on trial. 5. Eman al-Nafjan, women’s rights activist, blogger, detained on May 24, 2018, released on March 28, 2019. 6. Aziza al-Yousef, women’s rights activist, detained on May 15, 2018, released on March 28, 2019. 7. Amal al-Harbi, wife of activist Fawzan al-Harbi a member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, detained in July 2018, released in May 2019. 8. Nassima al-Sadah, human rights activist, detained in late July 2018, on trial. 9. Samar Badawi, human rights activist, detained in late July 2018, on trial. 10. Shadan al-Onezi women’s rights activist, detained in May 2018, released in May 2019. 11. Abeer Abdullah Al Namankany, women’s rights activist, detained in November 2018, released in May 2019. 12. Maysa al-Manea, women’s rights activist, detained in May 2018, released in May 2019. 13. Madeeha al-Ajroush, women’s rights activist, detained and released in May 2018. 14. Hessa al-Sheikh, women’s rights activist, detained and released in May 2018. 15. Aisha al-Manea, women’s rights activist, detained and released in May 2018. 16. Walaa al-Shubbar, women’s rights activist, detained and released in May 2018. 17. Ibrahim al-Modaimeegh, lawyer and human rights activist, detained on May 15, 2018, released in December 2018. 18. Mohammad al-Rabea, women’s rights activist, detained on May 15, 2018. 19. Abdulaziz al-Meshaal, philanthropist, women’s rights activist, detained on May 15, 2018, released in January 2019. https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 15/22 Human Rights Watch Page 28 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change April 2019 Arrests

Around April 4, 2019, despite continuing international criticism stemming from the Khashoggi murder, Saudi Arabia carried out a new round of arrests, this time targeting 13 writers and activists. Saudi human rights activists told Human Rights Watch that they did not know the specific basis of the arrests but said that all of those detained had connections to the Saudi women’s rights movement.[138]

One of those detained on April 4, Salah al-Haidar, is a US-Saudi dual citizen and the son of prominent women’s rights activist, Aziza al-Yousef. In addition to al- Haidar, those detained included Bader al-Ibrahim, a writer and medical doctor who is also a US-Saudi dual citizen; and Mohammad al-Sadiq, Abdullah al- Dehailan, Naif al-Hendas, Ayman al-Drees, Redha al-Bori, and Moqbel al-Saqqar, and Thumar al-Marzouqi and his wife, Khadijah al-Harbi, all of whom are writers. The others are Abdullah al-Shehri a lawyer, his wife Sheikha al-Urf, a physician, and Fahad Abalkhail, an independent activist. Al-Harbi was pregnant at the time of her arrest.[139]

In March, Saudi authorities detained Anas al-Mazrou, a lecturer at King Saud University, after he raised the issue of the detained Saudi women’s rights activists during a panel discussion at the Riyadh Book Fair in February.[140]

Detainee List

1. Salah al-Haidar, writer and activist, detained in April 2019.

2. Bader al-Ibrahim, writer and medical doctor, detained in April 2019.

3. Mohammad al-Sadiq, writer, detained in April 2019.

4. Adullah al-Dehailan, writer, detained in April 2019.

5. Naif al-Hendas, writer, detained in April 2019.

6. Ayman al-Drees, writer, detained in April 2019.

7. Redha al-Bori, writer, detained in April 2019.

8. Moqbel al-Saqqar, writer, detained in April 2019.

9. Thumar al-Marzouqi, writer, detained in April 2019.

10. Khadijah al-Harbi, writer, detained in April 2019.

11. Abdullah al-Shehri, lawyer, detained in April 2019.

12. Sheikha al-Urf, physician, detained in April 2019

13. Fahad Abalkhail, activist, detained in April 2019.

14. Anas al-Mazrou, lecturer at King Saud University, detained in March 2019.

Acknowledgements

This report was researched and written by Adam Coogle, senior researcher with the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, with extensive research support from a research assistant in the Middle East and North Africa division and Aaron Burroughs, intern with the Middle East and North Africa division.

The report was reviewed by a Michael Page, deputy Middle East and North Africa director; Rothna Begum, senior women’s rights researcher; Clive Baldwin, senior legal advisor; and Tom Porteous, deputy program director. Diana Naoum, coordinator in the Middle East and North Africa division, provided editorial and production assistance. Senior coordinator, Jose Martinez, and administrative manager, Fitzroy Hepkins, prepared the report for publication.

[1] Steffen Hertog, Princes, Brokers, and Bureaucrats: Oil and the State in Saudi Arabia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010); Nabil Mouline, The Clerics of Islam: Religious Authority and

Political Power in Saudi Arabia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014).

[2] “Saudi Arabia: A Move to Curb Religious Police Abuses,” Human Rights Watch news release, April 18, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/18/saudi-arabia-move-curb-religious-police-

abuses-0; “Saudi Arabia: Prominent Clerics Arrested,” Human Rights Watch news release, September 15, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/15/saudi-arabia-prominent-clerics-arrested.

[3] “Saudi Arabia: Corruption Arrests Raise Due Process Concerns,” Human Rights Watch news release, November 8, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/08/saudi-arabia-corruption-arrests-

raise-due-process-concerns.

[4] Adam Coogle, “Essam Koshak Case Will Test Saudi Arabia’s ‘Reformed’ Prosecution Service,” commentary, Human Rights Watch, July 18, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/18/essam-

koshak-case-will-test-saudi-arabias-reformed-prosecution-service; “Saudi Arabia creates new security authority,” Saudi Gazette, July 20, 2017, http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/513421 (accessed https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 16/22 Human Rights Watch Page 29 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

September 16, 2019).

[5] Katie Paul, “Saudi prince, relieved from National Guard, once seen as throne contender,” Reuters, November 4, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-government-defence-

newsmaker/saudi-prince-relieved-from-national-guard-once-seen-as-throne-contender-idUSKBN1D40VG (accessed September 17, 2019).

[6] Stephanie Flanders, Vivian Nereim, Donna Abu-Nasr, Nayla Razzouk, Alaa Shahine, and Riad Hamade, “Saudi Crown Prince Discusses Trump, Aramco, Arrests: Transcript,” Bloomberg, October

5, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-05/saudi-crown-prince-discusses-trump-aramco-arrests-transcript (accessed September 16, 2019).

[7] Karen Elliott House, “The Making of Saudi Arabia’s Energetic, Ruthless Crown Prince,” The Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-making-of-saudi-arabias-

energetic-ruthless-crown-prince-11555082281 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman named defense minister,” Al Arabiya, January 23, 2015, https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/01/23/Saudi-Prince-Mohammad-bin-Salman-

appointed-defense-minister-head-of-Royal-Court.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[10] Justin Vela, “Saudi Arabia’s King Salman changes line of succession,” The National, April 25, 2015, https://www.thenational.ae/world/saudi-arabia-s-king-salman-changes-line-of-succession-

1.69077 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[11] Abdallah al-Barqawi, “By Order of the King, Ending the Service of the Director of Public Security, Changing the Name of the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution, and Dismissals and

Appointments,” SABQ, https://sabq.org/%D8%A8%D8%A3%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83-%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A1-

%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9-

%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A1-

%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85?t=1497671988 (accessed October 30, 2019).

[12] Royal Decree 240 available here: https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=ar&newsid=1640804 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[13] Human Rights Watch, Challenging the Red Lines: Stories of Rights Activists in Saudi Arabia, December 17, 2013, https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/12/17/challenging-red-lines/stories-rights-

activists-saudi-arabia.

[14] “Saudi Arabia: Leadership Change Should Prioritize Improving Rights,” Human Rights Watch news release, June 22, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/22/saudi-arabia-leadership-change-

should-prioritize-improving-rights.

[15] Naser Al Wasmi, “Saudi Arabia’s Allegiance Council gives Prince Mohammed bin Salman vote of confidence,” The National, June 21, 2017, https://www.thenational.ae/world/saudi-arabia-s-

allegiance-council-gives-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-vote-of-confidence-1.92347 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[16] Ben Hubbard, Eric Schmitt, and Mark Mazzetti, “Deposed Saudi Prince Is Said to Be Confined to Palace,” New York Times, June 28, 2017,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/world/middleeast/deposed-saudi-prince-mohammed-bin-nayef.html (accessed August 30, 2019); “Saudi Arabia: Clarify Status of Ex-Crown Prince,” Human

Rights Watch news release, July 27, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/27/saudi-arabia-clarify-status-ex-crown-prince.

[17] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, October 29, 2019.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Stephen Kalin and Katie Paul, “Future Saudi king tightens grip on power with arrests including Prince Alwaleed,” Reuters, November 5, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-

arrests/future-saudi-king-tightens-grip-on-power-with-arrests-including-prince-alwaleed-idUSKBN1D506P (accessed August 30, 2019); “Saudi Arabia: Corruption Arrests Raise Due Process

Concerns,” Human Rights Watch news release, November 8, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/08/saudi-arabia-corruption-arrests-raise-due-process-concerns.

[20] “Saudi Arabia forms new apparatus of state security,” Arab News, July 21, 2017, https://www.arabnews.com/node/1132466/saudi-arabia (accessed August 30, 2019).

[21] “PROFILE: New Saudi Interior Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef,” Al Arabiya, June 21, 2017, https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/06/21/PROFILE-The-new-Saudi-Interior-

Minister.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[22] Katie Paul, “Saudi prince, relieved from National Guard, once seen as throne contender,” Reuters, November 4, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-government-defence-

newsmaker/saudi-prince-relieved-from-national-guard-once-seen-as-throne-contender-idUSKBN1D40VG (accessed September 17, 2019).

[23] Kenneth Rogoff, “What’s behind the drop in oil prices?” World Economic Forum, March 2, 2016, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/what-s-behind-the-drop-in-oil-prices/ (accessed

August 28, 2019).

[24] Martin Dokoupil, “Saudi could see budget deficit next year, risks draining reserves -IMF,” Reuters, September 24, 2014, https://www.reuters.com/article/imf-saudi-budget/saudi-could-see-budget-

deficit-next-year-risks-draining-reserves-imf-idUSL6N0RP47K20140924 (accessed August 28, 2019).

[25] “Saudi plans spending cuts, revenue push to shrink 2016 budget deficit,” Reuters, December 28, 2015, https://www.reuters.com/article/saudi-budget/saudi-plans-spending-cuts-revenue-push-to-

shrink-2016-budget-deficit-idUSnD5N0V80020151228 (accessed August 28,2019).

[26] The World Bank, “Unemployment, youth total (% of total labor force ages 15-24) (modeled ILO estimate) – Saudi Arabia,” https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS?locations=SA

(accessed August 28, 2019); Ismaeel Naar, “Saudi Arabia launches committee to tackle unemployment,” Al Arabiya, October 15, 2015,

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2015/10/15/Saudi-Arabia-launches-committee-to-tackle-unemployment.html (accessed August 28, 2019).

[27] Luay Al-Khatteeb, “Saudi Arabia’s economic time bomb,” The Brookings Institution, December 30, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/saudi-arabias-economic-time-bomb/ (accessed

August 28, 2019). https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 17/22 Human Rights Watch Page 30 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

[28] “Transcript: Interview with Muhammad bin Salman,” The Economist, January 6, 2016, https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2016/01/06/transcript-interview-with-muhammad-bin-

salman (accessed August 29, 2019).

[29] Vision 2030, available at: https://vision2030.gov.sa/en (accessed August 29, 2019).

[30] Ibid.

[31] Michelle Cioffoletti, “The Restructuring of Saudi Arts and Entertainment,” The Arab Gulf States Institute, August 8, 2019, https://agsiw.org/the-restructuring-of-saudi-arts-and-entertainment/

(accessed August 30, 2019).

[32] Nick Vivarelli, “Saudi Arabia Says It Will Invest $35 Billion in Movie Theaters by 2020,” Variety, April 4, 2019, https://variety.com/2019/film/news/saudi-arabia-movie-theaters-invest-35-billion-

dollars-1203180529/ (accessed August 30 2019).

[33] Michelle Cioffoletti, “The Restructuring of Saudi Arts and Entertainment,” The Arab Gulf States Institute, August 8, 2019, https://agsiw.org/the-restructuring-of-saudi-arts-and-entertainment/

(accessed August 30, 2019).

[34] “Saudi Arabia's religious authority says cinemas, song concerts harmful,” Reuters, January 17, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-saudi-entertainment-idUSKBN1511LL (accessed May 30,

2019); Bethan McKernan, “Saudi Arabia's entertainment chief fired after conservative backlash over Russian circus ‘nudity',” The Independent, June 19, 2018,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-russia-circus-nudity-catsuit-entertainment-minister-ahmed-al-khatib-fired-a8406501.html (accessed August 30, 2019); “Nicki

Minaj pulls out of Saudi Arabia concert after backlash,” The Guardian, July 9, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/jul/09/nicki-minaj-pulls-out-of-saudi-arabia-concert-after-backlash

(accessed August 30, 2019).

[35] Hadeel Al Sayegh, Davide Barbuscia, and Saeed Azhar, “Saudi Aramco aims to begin planned IPO on November 3: sources,” Reuters, October 29, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-

aramco-ipo/saudi-aramco-aims-to-begin-planned-ipo-on-nov-3-sources-idUSKBN1X80JH (accessed October 31, 2019).

[36] Dominic Dudley, “International Investors Are Pulling Out Of The Saudi Stock Market In The Wake Of Khashoggi Murder,” Forbes, November 30, 2018,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/11/30/investors-shun-saudi-stock-market-khashoggi/#7ca394f65085 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[37] Andrew England and Ahmed Al Omran, “Saudi Arabia attracts financiers again as Khashoggi outrage fades,” Financial Times, April 24, 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/615e2ff6-6678-11e9-

9adc-98bf1d35a056 (accessed August 30, 2019); Michael J. de la Merced, Stanley Reed, and Daisuke Wakabayashi, “Business Quietly Returns to Saudi Arabia After Khashoggi’s Murder,” New York

Times, April 17, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/business/saudi-arabia-business.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[38] “General: royal decree on releasing royal court advisor Saud al-Qahtani from his position,” Saudi Press Agency, October 19, 2018, https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?

lang=ar&newsid=1830333 (accessed August 31, 2019).

[39] Mark Mazzetti and Ben Hubbard, “It Wasn’t Just Khashoggi: A Saudi Prince’s Brutal Drive to Crush Dissent,” New York Times, March 17, 2019,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/middleeast/khashoggi-crown-prince-saudi.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[40] Ibid,

[41] Tweet by Saud al-Qahtani (@saudq1978) on Twitter social media platform, August 17, 2017,

https://www.arab48.com/%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7/%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7/2018/10/20/%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1_%D9%85%D

%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF-%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%B1-

%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%82%D8%AC%D9%8A (accessed

October 30, 2019).

[42] “Full text: Saudi Arabia's public prosecution briefing on the Jamal Khashoggi murder investigation,” Arab News, November 15, 2018, https://www.arabnews.com/node/1405526 (accessed August

31, 2019); Dion Nissenbaum, Warren P. Strobel, and Summer Said, “U.S. Seeks Accountability for Former Saudi Aide in Khashoggi Killing,” Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2019,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-seeks-accountability-for-former-saudi-aide-in-khashoggi-killing-11549920938 (accessed August 31, 2019).

[43] Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), “A Conversation with HRH Prince Khalid bin Bandar Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom,” October 14, 2019,

https://www.rusi.org/event/conversation-hrh-prince-khalid-bin-bandar-al-saud-ambassador-kingdom-saudi-arabia-united (accessed October 23, 2019); “A Conversation with HRH Prince Khalid bin

Bandar Al Saud,” October 15, 2019, video clip, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=945&v=QbUaaspPKww (accessed October 23, 2019).

[44] “Saudi Arabia: Thousands Held Arbitrarily,” Human Rights Watch news release, May 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/06/saudi-arabia-thousands-held-arbitrarily.

[45] Saudi Criminal Procedure Law, art. 114, available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/ar/sa/sa045ar.pdf (accessed October 30, 2019).

[46] “Saudi Arabia: Clarify Status of ‘Corruption’ Detainees,” Human Rights Watch news release, February 18, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/18/saudi-arabia-clarify-status-corruption-

detainees.

[47] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, February 8, 2019.

[48] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, January 24, 2019.

[49] Karim Faheem and Loveday Morris, “Saudi campaign to abduct and silence rivals abroad goes back decades,” Washington Post, November 4, 2018, https://beta.washingtonpost.com/world/saudi-

campaign-to-abduct-and-silence-rivals-abroad-goes-back-decades/2018/11/04/ce6b801c-dc8a-11e8-8bac-bfe01fcdc3a6_story.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[50] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with family member of Walid al-Fitaihi, March 13, 2019.

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 18/22 Human Rights Watch Page 31 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

[51] David D. Kirkpatrick, “Saudi Arabia Is Said to Have Tortured an American Citizen,” New York Times, March 2, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-torture-

american-citizen.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[52] Ben Hubbard, “Saudi Arabia Frees Doctor With U.S. Citizenship After 21 Months,” New York Times, August 1, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-doctor-

us.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[53] “Saudi court postpones hearing of prominent preacher Awdah: son,” Reuters, July 28, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests/saudi-court-postpones-hearing-of-prominent-preacher-

awdah-son-idUSKCN1UN0I7 (accessed August 31, 2019); Human Rights Watch interview with al-Awda family member, October 2019.

[54] “Saudi Arabia: Women’s Rights Activists Charged,” Human Rights Watch news release, March 1, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/01/saudi-arabia-womens-rights-activists-charged.

[55] Human Rights Watch interviews with Saudi human rights activists, August 2019.

[56] United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, “Fact Sheet No. 26, The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,” https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf

(accessed August 31, 2019).

[57] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles), adopted December 9, 1988, G.A. Res. 43/173, annex, 43 U.N. GAOR

Supp. (No. 49) at 298, U.N. Doc. A/43/49 (1988).

[58] League of Arab States, Arab Charter for Human Rights, adopted May 22, 2004, reprinted in 12 Int'l Hum. Rts. Rep. 893 (2005), entered into force March 15, 2008, art 14.

[59] “Saudi Arabia: Corruption Arrests Raise Due Process Concerns,” Human Rights Watch news release, November 8, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/08/saudi-arabia-corruption-arrests-

raise-due-process-concerns.

[60] “Saudi hotel to reopen after being used as prison in corruption purge,” Reuters, January 15, 2018, https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1F41MF (accessed August 31, 2019).

[61] “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-

women-activists.

[62] Mark Mazzetti and Ben Hubbard, “It Wasn’t Just Khashoggi: A Saudi Prince’s Brutal Drive to Crush Dissent,” New York Times, March 17, 2019,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/middleeast/khashoggi-crown-prince-saudi.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[63] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 30, para 11.

[64] “Saudi Arabia: Clarify Status of ‘Corruption’ Detainees,” Human Rights Watch news release, February 18, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/18/saudi-arabia-clarify-status-corruption-

detainees.

[65] Simeon Kerr, “Top Saudi broadcaster caught up in Riyadh’s corruption shakedown,” January 27, 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/a50075d2-0069-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5 (accessed August 30,

2019).

[66] Stephen Kalin, “Exclusive: Saudi Arabia curbs family influence in Binladin group shake-up,” March 18, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-binladin-exclusive/exclusive-saudi-arabia-

curbs-family-influence-in-binladin-group-shake-up-idUSKCN1QZ240 (accessed August 30, 2019); Katie Paul, Tom Arnold, Marwa Rashad, and Stephen Kalin, “As a Saudi prince rose, the Bin Laden

business empire crumbled,” September 27, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/saudi-binladin-fall/ (accessed August 30, 2019).

[67] Sarah Dadouch and Katie Paul, “Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed released as corruption probe winds down,” Reuters, January 27, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests-

princealwaleed/saudi-billionaire-prince-alwaleed-released-as-corruption-probe-winds-down-idUSKBN1FG0DT (accessed August 30, 2019); Kate Kelly, “Freed From a Gilded Cage, a Famed Saudi

Investor Returns to the Markets,” New York Times, August 2, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/saudi-investor-alwaleed.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[68] Summer Said, Rory Jones, and Justin Scheck, “Saudis Release Consultant, Billionaire Imprisoned in Crackdown,” The Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudis-

release-ex-mckinsey-consultant-billionaire-imprisoned-in-crackdown-11548255043 (accessed August 31, 2019); Nizar Manek and Vivian Nereim, “One of the Mideast's Richest Men Is Among Freed

Saudi Detainees,” Bloomberg, January 27, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-27/saudi-ethiopian-billionaire-al-amoudi-released-in-saudi-arabia (accessed August 31, 2019).

[69] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, October 29, 2019.

[70] Sarah El Sirgany and Tamara Qiblawi, “Jailed Saudi activist rejects deal to deny torture for release, says family,” CNN, August 14, 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/14/middleeast/saudi-

hathloul-torture-intl/index.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[71] Human Rights Watch interview with informed source, August 16, 2019.

[72] “Saudi Arabia: Cleric Held 4 Months Without Charge,” Human Rights Watch news release, January 7, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/07/saudi-arabia-cleric-held-4-months-without-

charge.

[73] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with family member of Walid al-Fitaihi, March 13, 2019.

[74] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, October 29, 2019.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Saudi human rights activists, October 2019.

[77] Saudi Travel Documents Law, art. 6, available at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/e29f08fa-d53e-4944-b22b-a9a700f17fd9/1; “Saudi Arabia: Lift Travel Ban on Government

Critics,” Human Rights Watch news release, February 13, 2007, https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/02/13/saudi-arabia-lift-travel-ban-government-critics.

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 19/22 Human Rights Watch Page 32 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

[78] UN Commission on Human Rights, The right of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country, 11 March 1985, E/CN.4/RES/1985/22, available at:

https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f06e4f.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[79] Documentation of Saudi execution announcements, on file with Human Rights Watch; Human Rights Watch and Justice Project Pakistan, “Caught in a Web”: Treatment of Pakistanis in the Saudi

Criminal Justice System, March 7, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/03/07/caught-web/treatment-pakistanis-saudi-criminal-justice-system.

[80] “Details of Charges Facing Salman al-Awda,” Erem News, September 4, 2018, https://www.eremnews.com/news/arab-world/saudi-arabia/1481280 (accessed August 31, 2019); Charge sheet on

file with Human Rights Watch.

[81] “Political: The Kingdom, Egypt, the Emirates, and Bahrain Announce the Addition of Two Entities and Eleven Individuals to their Prohibited Terrorism List,” Saudi Press Agency, November 23,

2017, https://www.spa.gov.sa/1690714 (accessed August 31, 2019).

[82] “Details of Charges Facing Salman al-Awda,” Erem News, September 4, 2018, https://www.eremnews.com/news/arab-world/saudi-arabia/1481280 (accessed August 31, 2019); Charge sheet on

file with Human Rights Watch.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Charge sheet on file with Human Rights Watch.

[85] “Saudi Arabia: Religious Thinker on Trial for His Life,” Human Rights Watch news release, June 23, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/23/saudi-arabia-religious-thinker-trial-his-life.

[86] Ibid,

[87] Ibid.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Bill Marczak, John Scott-Railton, Adam Senft, Bahr Abdul Razzak, and Ron Deibert, “The Kingdom Came to Canada: How Saudi-Linked Digital Espionage Reached Canadian Soil,” Citizen Lab,

October 1, 2018, https://citizenlab.ca/2018/10/the-kingdom-came-to-canada-how-saudi-linked-digital-espionage-reached-canadian-soil/ (accessed October 18, 2019).

[90] Ibid.

[91] “Amnesty International Among Targets of NSO-powered Campaign,” Amnesty International, October 1, 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/08/amnesty-international-among-

targets-of-nso-powered-campaign/ (accessed October 18, 2019); Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Nick Hopkins, “Saudi Arabia accused of hacking London-based dissident,” The Guardian, May 28, 2019,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/28/saudi-arabia-accused-of-hacking-london-based-dissident-ghanem-almasarir (accessed October 18, 2019); Thomas Brewster, “Exclusive: Saudi

Dissidents Hit With Stealth iPhone Spyware Before Khashoggi's Murder,” Forbes, November 21, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/11/21/exclusive-saudi-dissidents-hit-with-

stealth-iphone-spyware-before-khashoggis-murder/#2722602c2e8b (accessed October 18, 2019).

[92] David Ignatius, “How the mysteries of Khashoggi’s murder have rocked the U.S.-Saudi partnership,” Washington Post, March 29, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-

opinions/how-the-mysteries-of-khashoggis-murder-have-rocked-the-us-saudi-partnership/2019/03/29/cf060472-50af-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html (accessed October 18, 2019).

[93] NSO Group, “Human Rights Policy,” https://www.nsogroup.com/governance/human-rights-policy/ (accessed October 18, 2019).

[94] Tweet from Saud al-Qahtani (@saudq1978) on Twitter social media platform, August 17, 2017, https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1144263147416670209/photo/1 (accessed October 30, 2019).

[95] Saudi Federation for Cybersecurity, Programming, and Drones, “About,” https://safcsp.org.sa/en.html (accessed February 7, 2019).

[96] Tweet from Saud al-Qahtani (@saudq1978) on Twitter social media platform, August 18, 2017,

http://www.alhayat.com/article/881627/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9-

%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AD%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-

%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B2%D9%82%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8-

%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88-

%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-(accessed October 30, 2019).

[97] Manal al-Sharif, “I’m a Saudi activist. Twitter put my life in danger.” Washington Post, November 9, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/11/09/im-a-saudi-

activist-twitter-put-my-life-in-danger/?utm_term=.0230b94a1e87 (accessed February 7, 2019).

[98] Nick Hopkins, Stephanie Kirchgaessner, and Kareem Shaheen, “Leaked reports reveal severe abuse of Saudi political prisoners,” Guardian, March 31, 2019,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/31/leaked-reports-reveal-abuse-saudi-arabia-political-prisoners (accessed August 31, 2019).

[99] Ibid

[100] “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-

women-activists; Margherita Stancati and Summer Said, “Saudi Arabia Accused of Torturing Women’s-Rights Activists in Widening Crackdown on Dissent,” Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2018,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-accused-of-torturing-women-activists-in-widening-crackdown-on-dissent-1542743107 (accessed February 15, 2019); “Deposed aide to Saudi crown prince

accused of role in female activists' torture,” Reuters, December 6, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-aide/deposed-aide-to-saudi-crown-prince-accused-of-role-in-female-

activists-torture-idUSKBN1O51ZX (accessed February 15, 2019).

[101] Alia al-Hathloul, “My Sister Is in a Saudi Prison. Will Mike Pompeo Stay Silent?” New York Times, January 13, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/opinion/saudi-women-rights-activist-

prison-pompeo.html (accessed February 15, 2019).

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 20/22 Human Rights Watch Page 33 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

[102] “ALQST Confirms New Details of Torture of Saudi Women Activists as British MPs Seek Access to Prisons to Investigate,” ALQST, January 3, 2019, https://alqst.org/eng/confirms-new-details-

of-torture-of-saudi-women-activists-as-british-mps-seek-access-to-prisons-to-investigate/ (accessed February 15, 2019)

[103] “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-

women-activists; “Deposed aide to Saudi crown prince accused of role in female activists' torture,” Reuters, December 6, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-aide/deposed-aide-

to-saudi-crown-prince-accused-of-role-in-female-activists-torture-idUSKBN1O51ZX (accessed February 15, 2019).

[104] “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-

women-activists.

[105] Human Rights Watch communications with informed sources, January and February 2019.

[106] Vivian Nereim, “Saudis to Probe Allegations That Women Activists Torture,” Bloomberg, January 13, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-13/saudis-said-to-probe-

allegations-that-women-activists-tortured (accessed February 15, 2019); Margherita Stancati and Summer Said, “Jailed Women’s Rights Activists Tell Saudi Investigators of Torture,” Wall Street

Journal, December 17, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/jailed-womens-rights-activists-tell-saudi-investigators-of-torture-11545074461 (accessed February 15, 2019).

[107] “Saudi Persecution Denies Activist Subjected to Torture,” Al Arabiya, March 2, 2019, https://www.alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-

today/2019/03/02/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-

%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A9-

%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8 (accessed April 4, 2019).

[108] Ben Hubbard, David D. Kirkpatrick, Kate Kelly, and Mark Mazzetti, “Saudis Said to Use Coercion and Abuse to Seize Billions,” New York Times, March 11, 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-corruption-mohammed-bin-salman.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[109] Ben Hubbard and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Behind Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Rise, Two Loyal Enforcers,” New York Times, November 14, 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-crown-prince-loyalists.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[110] David D. Kirkpatrick, “Saudi Arabia Is Said to Have Tortured an American Citizen,” New York Times, March 2, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-

torture-american-citizen.html?module=inline (accessed August 31, 2019).

[111] Summer Said, Justin Scheck, and Bradley Hope, “Former McKinsey Executive Imprisoned by Saudis,” Wall Street Journal, December 28, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-mckinsey-

executive-imprisoned-by-saudis-11545998438 (accessed August 31, 2019).

[112] Summer Said, Rory Jones, and Justin Scheck, “Saudis Release Consultant, Billionaire Imprisoned in Crackdown,” The Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudis-

release-ex-mckinsey-consultant-billionaire-imprisoned-in-crackdown-11548255043 (accessed August 31, 2019).

[113] “Saudi Arabia: Prominent Clerics Arrested,” Human Right Watch news release, September 15, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/15/saudi-arabia-prominent-clerics-arrested; “Saudi

economist who criticized Aramco IPO charged with terrorism: activists,” Reuters, October 1, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests/saudi-economist-who-criticized-aramco-ipo-

charged-with-terrorism-activists-idUSKCN1MB3OI (accessed August 30, 2019).

[114] “Saudi Arabia: Prominent Clerics Arrested,” Human Right Watch news release, September 15, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/15/saudi-arabia-prominent-clerics-arrested.

[115] “State Security Presidency monitors intelligence activities by group of persons for benefit of foreign parties against security of Kingdom,” Saudi Press Agency, September 12, 2017,

https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1665140#1665140 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[116] “Saudi clerics detained in apparent bid to silence dissent,” Reuters, September 10, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security-arrests/saudi-clerics-detained-in-apparent-bid-to-

silence-dissent-idUSKCN1BL129 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[117] “Saudi Arabia: Cleric Held 4 Months Without Charge,” Human Rights Watch news release, January 7, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/07/saudi-arabia-cleric-held-4-months-without-

charge.

[118] Royal decree available at: https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=ar&newsid=1684243

[119] “Princes and former ministers detained in Saudi Arabia corruption probe,” Al Arabiya, November 5, 2017, https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/11/05/Princes-and-former-ministers-

detained-in-Jeddah-floods-and-Coronoa-virus-corruption-probe.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[120] Stephen Kalin and Katie Paul, “Future Saudi king tightens grip on power with arrests including Prince Alwaleed,” Reuters, November 5, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-

arrests/future-saudi-king-tightens-grip-on-power-with-arrests-including-prince-alwaleed-idUSKBN1D506P (accessed August 30, 2019).

[121] Sarah Dadouch and Katie Paul, “Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed released as corruption probe winds down,” Reuters, January 27, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests-

princealwaleed/saudi-billionaire-prince-alwaleed-released-as-corruption-probe-winds-down-idUSKBN1FG0DT (accessed August 30, 2019); Kate Kelly, “Freed From a Gilded Cage, a Famed Saudi

Investor Returns to the Markets,” New York Times, August 2, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/saudi-investor-alwaleed.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[122] Ben Hubbard, David D. Kirkpatrick, Kate Kelly, and Mark Mazzetti, “Saudis Said to Use Coercion and Abuse to Seize Billions,” New York Times, March 11, 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-corruption-mohammed-bin-salman.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[123] “Statement by the Royal Court: Anti Corruption Committee Concludes Its Tasks,” Saudi Press Agency, January 30, 2019, https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1880379

(accessed August 30, 2019).

[124] Ibid.

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 21/22 Human Rights Watch Page 34 of 174

11/24/2020 The High Cost of Change

[125] Angela Dewan, Schams Elwazer and Tamara Qiblawi, “Saudi Ritz-Carlton reopens after stint as lavish prison,” CNN, February 11, 2018, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/11/middleeast/saudi-

ritz-carlton-reopens-intl/index.html (accessed August 31, 2019).

[126] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with informed source, October 29, 2019.

[127] “Saudi Arabia: Growing Crackdown on Women’s Rights Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, May 23, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/23/saudi-arabia-growing-crackdown-

womens-rights-activists.

[128] “Saudi Arabia: Allow Access to Detained Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 6, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/06/saudi-arabia-allow-access-detained-

women-activists; Margherita Stancati and Summer Said, “Saudi Arabia Accused of Torturing Women’s-Rights Activists in Widening Crackdown on Dissent,” Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2018,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-accused-of-torturing-women-activists-in-widening-crackdown-on-dissent-1542743107 (accessed February 15, 2019); “Deposed aide to Saudi crown prince

accused of role in female activists' torture,” Reuters, December 6, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-aide/deposed-aide-to-saudi-crown-prince-accused-of-role-in-female-

activists-torture-idUSKBN1O51ZX (accessed February 15, 2019).

[129] “Saudi Arabia: Women’s Rights Activists Charged,” Human Rights Watch news release, March 1, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/01/saudi-arabia-womens-rights-activists-charged.

[130] “The Public Prosecution Issues Statement, regarding Arrest of Individuals, by State Security,” Saudi Press Agency, March 1, 2019, https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?

lang=en&newsid=1894009 (accessed August 30, 2019).

اﻟﻨﯿﺎﺑﺔ-اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ-ﺗﻨﻔﻲ-ﺗﻌﺮض-ﻣﻮﻗﻮﻓﺔ-ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺬﯾﺐ/Saudi Public Prosecution Denies Women Detainee Subjected to Torture,” Al Arabiya, March 2, 2019, https://www.alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-today/2019/03/02“ [131]

(accessed August 30, 2019).

[132] “Saudi Arabia: Abusive Charges Against Women Activists,” Human Rights Watch news release, March 21, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/21/saudi-arabia-abusive-charges-against-

women-activists.

[133] Ibid.

[134] Karim Faheem, “Saudi Arabia temporarily releases 3 women arrested in crackdown on activists,” Washington Post, March 28, 2019, https://beta.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/saudi-

arabia-temporarily-releases-3-women-arrested-in-crackdown-on-activists/2019/03/28/b4cfe340-5166-11e9-af35-1fb9615010d7_story.html (accessed August 30, 2019).

[135] “Saudi Arabia temporarily frees four women activists,” BBC, May 3, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48142640 (accessed August 30, 2019).

[136] Human Rights Watch interview with Saudi individual, July 2019.

[137] Vivian Nereim, “Saudi Lawyer Who Defended Activists Is Freed, Sources Say,” Bloomberg, December 24, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-24/saudi-lawyer-who-

defended-activists-is-said-to-have-been-freed (accessed August 30, 2019); Human Rights Watch interviews with Saudi human rights activists, January 2019.

[138] Human Rights Watch interviews with Saudi human rights activists, April 2019.

[139] Human Rights Watch interviews with Saudi human rights activists, April 2019.

[140] “Saudi Arabia: New wave of arrests and travel bans latest assault on freedom of expression,” Amnesty International, April 5, 2019, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/04/saudi-arabia-

new-wave-of-arrests-and-travel-bans-latest-assault-on-freedom-of-expression/ (accessed August 30, 2019); “Professor Anas al-Mazrou at King Saud University defends the rights of women activists

detained at a book fair,”, March 28, 2019, video clip, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV3bbNq7Ma4 (accessed August 30, 2019).

Region / Country

Middle East/North Africa Saudi Arabia

Topic

Free Speech Torture

1. Summary 2. Recommendations 3. Methodology 4. I. Saudi Arabia Under New Leadership 5. II. Due Process Violations 6. III. Torture Allegations 7. IV. Comprehensive List of Detainees 8. Acknowledgements

Source URL: https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/11/04/high-cost-change/repression-under-saudi-crown-prince-tarnishes-reforms

https://www.hrw.org/node/335260/printable/print 22/22 Human Rights Watch Page 35 of 174 Saudi Arabia: Prominent Detainees Held Incommunicado https://www.hrw.org/node/376290/printable/print

SEPTEMBER 6, 2020 Saudi Arabia: Prominent Detainees Held Incommunicado

Safety Concerns for Activists, Ex-Crown Prince, Cleric Published in

(Beirut) – Saudi Arabia has denied some prominent detainees contact with their family members and lawyers for months, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter requesting access to the country and private prison visits with detainees. The situation raises serious concerns for the detainees’ safety and well-being.

Saudi authorities have banned in- person visits with prisoners across the Prominent women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul had been on hunger strike for six days before Saudi authorities country since March 2020 to limit the finally allowed her parents to visit on August 31, according spread of Covid-19. But Saudi to family members. Al-Hathloul had spent almost three activists and other sources say that the months before that in incommunicado detention. authorities have also unduly denied © Private numerous imprisoned dissidents and other detainees regular communication with the outside world.

“Saudi authorities appear intent on making certain detainees and their loved ones suffer even further by denying them the ability to hear each other’s voices and know for certain they are ok,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “All prisoners should be allowed unfettered communication with their families and the world outside their prison cells, but especially so during these trying times.”

A family member of a leading women’s rights activist told Human Rights Watch they have not received phone calls from their detained relative in over two months. A relative of a prominent imprisoned cleric, Salman al-Awda, said the family has not heard from him since May.

Family members of another prominent women’s rights activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, said that the

1 of 4 24/11/2020, 19:42 Human Rights Watch Page 36 of 174 Saudi Arabia: Prominent Detainees Held Incommunicado https://www.hrw.org/node/376290/printable/print

authorities finally allowed her parents to visit on August 31, after she spent almost three months in incommunicado detention. They said she had begun a hunger strike six days before the visit after learning that some other detainees had been allowed to call their families. Saudi authorities have detained all three for over two years or longer in what informed sources indicate are abusive conditions, while they face repeatedly adjourned trials based on charges that violate their basic rights.

According to lawyers representing the former crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, he has been detained without charge since his arrest in March, and his current whereabouts are unknown. While the prince has occasionally been allowed to make calls to family members, some of which were reportedly made under duress, the lawyers said that he has been denied visits with family members since his arrest and his personal doctor since his initial period of detention. The lawyers said they do not know whether the prince has received treatment for his diabetes and that there are serious concerns about his well- being and health.

Saudi authorities arrested al-Hathloul along with a number of other prominent Saudi women’s rights activists in May 2018, marking the beginning of a brutal crackdown on the women’s rights movement in Saudi Arabia. For the first three months, the authorities held her incommunicado, without access to her family and lawyer. In August, the authorities embarked on a second wave of arrests.

In November 2018, human rights organizations began reporting accusations that Saudi interrogators had tortured al-Hathloul and at least three other detained women, including with electric shocks and whippings, and had sexually harassed them.

Saudi Arabia brought charges against several women’s rights advocates, including al-Hathloul, that appear almost entirely related to their human rights activities and opened their trials in March 2019. As of August 2020, more than a year since, none of them had been sentenced and no new hearing dates have been set.

Al-Awda, 63, was among the first of dozens of people detained in mid-September 2017 by the Presidency of State Security, an agency established only months before, following Mohammad bin Salman’s appointment as crown prince. Al-Awda was held in solitary confinement, with no lawyer and a limited ability to contact family members.

In September 2018, Saudi prosecutors sought the death penalty against him on a host of vague charges related to his political statements, associations, and positions. None of the charges refer to specific acts of violence or incitement to violence. His relative said that he remains in solitary confinement, that his trial has been suspended since late 2019, and that his hearings have been postponed numerous times without explanation. Since May, Saudi prison authorities have denied him all contact with his family, leaving them seriously concerned for his health.

Contact with the outside world is an essential right of prisoners. International standards dictate that

2 of 4 24/11/2020, 19:42 Human Rights Watch Page 37 of 174 Saudi Arabia: Prominent Detainees Held Incommunicado https://www.hrw.org/node/376290/printable/print

prisoners must be allowed to “communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by receiving visits.”vLimitations on contact and movement should be proportionate and measured, and a prosecutor or prison director may not arbitrarily withdraw a prisoner’s rights to such contact. International standards require that “communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world, and in particular his family or counsel, shall not be denied for more than a matter of days.”

Even before the pandemic, Human Rights Watch had documented that prison administrations would often halt prisoners’ communications with relatives without explanation and would heavily monitor calls when they do allow them, cutting the lines if prisoners tried to discuss their cases or complain about detention conditions. Some prisoners also said that phone calls are usually restricted to 2 to 10 minutes.

Saudi Arabia has recorded a steady rise in Covid-19 cases since March 2, with 303,973 cases and 3,548 deaths recorded by August 20. Infectious diseases like Covid-19 pose a serious risk to populations in closed institutions like prisons and detention centers. In Saudi Arabia’s prisons, where human rights groups have long documented ill-treatment, overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and denial of adequate medical care, it is virtually impossible to adequately protect the mental and physical health of already vulnerable prisoners in case of an outbreak.

On April 24, a leading Saudi human rights figure, Abdullah al-Hamid, 69, died while serving a long prison term. The Saudi human rights organization ALQST reported that al-Hamid’s health condition had deteriorated in recent months, and that the authorities had delayed a heart operation a doctor told al-Hamid he needed in early 2020. ALQST said that authorities took steps to prevent al-Hamid from discussing his health condition with his family. He suffered a stroke on April 9 and remained hospitalized in a coma until his death.

On July 19, a writer and journalist, Saleh al-Shehi, died in the hospital two months after his release from detention. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called for an independent international investigation to determine whether there is a link between his detention conditions and his death from an illness that has not been formally identified but that some local media outlets said was Covid-19. Saudi authorities released Al-Shehi from prison on May 19 without explanation after he had served two and a half years of a five-year sentence on speech-related charges.

Saudi authorities should promptly allow independent international monitors to enter the country, regularly monitor prison and detention facilities, carry out impartial investigations into allegations of torture and suspicious deaths in detention, and conduct private and regular visits with prisoners, Human Rights Watch said.

“Following the devastating deaths of prominent detainees in suspicious circumstances, Saudi Arabia’s

3 of 4 24/11/2020, 19:42 Human Rights Watch Page 38 of 174 Saudi Arabia: Prominent Detainees Held Incommunicado https://www.hrw.org/node/376290/printable/print

allies should demand that they immediately release all those unjustly detained for exercising their basic rights before it’s too late,” Page said. “The families of detainees held incommunicado should not have to spend another day anxiously wondering what has become of their relatives.”

Related Content

Saudi Arabia: Prince in Incommunicado Detention Saudi Arabia: Partial Criminal Justice Revisions

Region / Country

Middle East/North Africa Saudi Arabia

Source URL: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/25/saudi-arabia-free-adult-children-ex-official

https://www.hrw.org/node/375206/printable/print 3/3 Freedom Now submissions in Page 46 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Arrested since May 15, 2018 at the State Security prison

Following crimes:

1. Inciting and inviting to change the political system in the Kingdom, and abolish the constitution by cooperating with Khaled Alomair on telegram to initiate a campaign on Twitter to request for a new constitution and designing some brochures for the campaign.

2. Participating in demanding for women's rights that have been guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women. The purpose was to help executing foreign agenda and gaining personal interests which override the rules implemented by the leadership, the constitution of the country and the privacy of the Saudi society and its custom.

3. Striving to serve the agenda inside and outside the Kingdom. The coordinated agenda corresponds with the movement of the media, which are in line with the "alleged rights" by demanding to abolish the male guardianship. Additionally, she had been participating in attending conferences and panels that are related to Saudi women's rights. And using her platforms on social media to publish videos that are supporting these campaigns and promoting them as well.

4. Contacting

A. international organizations B. rogues’ groups C. individuals D. terrorist organizations that are ant-Saudi, E. foreign journalists F. preparing the "shadow report" about women by coordinating with external organizations and providing them with information about the status and rights of Saudi women in the Kingdom G. discussing with foreign organizations about her case and other cases. She had also discussed with external organizations about her travel ban to travel, write or to appearing on media H. she had also discussed the verdicts issued to female prisoners and translating it to benefit from it and making foreign organizations take to encourage the incitement to the country I. demanding from external organizations and individuals to take advantage of their connections to human rights organizations and European countries. The demands were meant to pressure Saudi Arabia to change its laws and to discuss her case when the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visits Europe J. contacting embassies of countries the CP will visit to provide them with details of her case Freedom Now submissions in Page 47 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

5. Receiving financial support from an external organization to visit human rights organizations and to attend conferences and panels to speak about the status of Saudi women.

6. Providing suggestions to a foreign organization and to the rogue Yahia Assiri (since he has strong connections with the British government). She had suggested providing financial and moral support by having access to psychologists, flight tickets and accommodation to the enemies of the country to spend their vacations in a European country.

7. Contacting the Qatari citizen Tahani Alhajeri via WhatsApp to discuss women's rights and to provide her with a report prepared by the rogue/ Hala Aldossari named "A Comparison on Women’s Status in GCC Countries".

8. Supporting the organization "Hassem" which had been terminated by a verdict, and writing and retweeting tweets showing sympathy to the organization.

9. Taking advantage of her previous detention and travel ban to include it in her resume, to apply for a job at the United Nations.

10. Setting up meetings at her father's house with employees of embassies to discuss her story about her previous detention at Alha'er prison.

11. Participating in a documentary with British journalists to speak about her personal experience in prison.

12. Producing, preparing, storing, and sending that harm the "public system", which is criminalized according to article 6 of the "Combating Cybercrime" system that was issued by a royal decree number (M/17) date: 24/3/2007 by the following: a) Using social media apps to connect with individuals who are enemies of the country. b) Joining groups on WhatsApp and Telegram that discuss abolishing male guardianship and giving women full rights that make them equal to men. In addition to coordinating campaigns that demand a new constitution for the country by setting up meetings and interviews that serve the campaign and by providing reports and information. c) Taking and publishing videos with false information to damage the reputation of the Kingdom. Freedom Now submissions in Page 48 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

d) Violating previous pledges that she signed.

The detainee [Loujain] was arrested [on the date mentioned on top of page 1] after finding information of her contacting dissidents abroad and what has been found on her social media account by engaging on "inciting activities".

The investigation concluded by charging her with the followings: 1. Admitting that she started to communicate with the rogue Yahia Assiri back in 2014 on a a group called "Sawaleef" that was created by the rogue Hala Aldossari. The members in group are Azziza Alyoussef, Eman Alnafjan, Yahia Assiri and other activists to discuss women's rights issues in the Kingdom. The discussion included laws that are related to women. She had also provided the rogue Yahia Assiri information about her previous case [when she was arrested in 2014]. She asked him [Assiri] to use his connection with human rights organizations to pressure the Kingdom to change its laws such as abolishing the male guardianship. She had communicated with him [Assiri] to provide him with the phone number of Noha Albalawi's brother, who [Noha] was released from prison. The purpose of that was to ensure she was doing well and if she needed any support, but he [Assiri] avoided speaking to her.

2. Admitting that she had translated the verdict issued against Ms. Maryam Alotaibi and to send it to the rogue Yahya Assiri. The "translated verdict" would be used to write a report about Ms. Alotaibi and to share it with international human rights organizations.

3. Admitting that she had coordinated with the detained Khaled Alomair via Telegram to launch a campaign on Twiter to demand a new constitution for the Kingdom. Alleging that her involvement was only about amending some points on the suggesting ideas. She had also designed brochures which have not been used in the campaign. The name of the campaign was "The People Want a New Constitution".

4. Admitting that she had contacted the rogue Yahia Assiri via Telegram to plan to meet him in Geneva three months before her arrest. She had provided him [Assiri] with information on women's rights status in the Kingdom. She had also coordinated with an external organization and the rogue Yahia Assiri to write the shadow report that takes into consideration women's right. The report had been sent to the "external organization."

5. Admitting that in 2018, she provided the rogue Yahia Assiri, a foreign organization, and the rogue Hala Aldossari with information about her detention when she was trying to cross the border from the UAE to Saudi Arabia. The information includes her current situation and that she is banned from writing and appearing on media. She had asked them to send this information secretly to international organizations to pressure the Kingdom. She had also contacted members in European embassies whom she does not remember their names. Freedom Now submissions in Page 49 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

6. Admitting that the rogue Yahia Assiri offered her a job to work with him at his organization "Alqst" and to offer her support to apply for asylum, but she refused the idea. 7. Admitting that those who contacted her to request for things in an illegal way were Aziza Alyousef and Eman Alnafjan.

8. Admitting that she had received a digital privacy training in Spain, which was organized by the Bahraini citizen Hamed Masqati who contacted her to attend the training. The organization in charge of that is FIDH, and it provided her with transportation, accommodation, and a EUR 50 daily spending.

9. Admitting that she had contacted around 15-20 foreign journalists to provide them with information about women's issues in the Kingdom. Among those journalists are Sarah from Reuters and Vivian.

10. Admitting that foreign organizations provided her with transportation, accommodation, and a EUR 50 daily spending to visit human rights organizations. This would include attending conferences and panels to discuss women's status in the Kingdom.

11. Admitting that she had sympathized with the organization "Hassem", and she had tweeted related the verdicts against the detainees of the organization to get the attention of human rights organizations.

12. Admitting that she had coordinated with the detainee Eman Alnafjan to inform Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about the recent decision from security agencies to place several human rights activists on travel ban. And to urge them to lift the travel ban on the activists.

13. Admitting that she had contacted the rogue Omar Abdulaziz and she had helped him to get in touch with Amnesty International to improve his situation in Canada.

14. Admitting that she had contacted the rogue Ali Aldubaisi who works in a human rights organization in Germany. Ali had requested from her [Loujain] to help him finalize his report about women's rights in the Kingdom.

15. Admitting that when she knew that the Crown Prince MbS was going to visit the UK and France, she contacted Floor from Amnesty International, Kathrin from the British Embassy, Losia from the EU, Euren from the embassy of Netherland, the rogue Yahia Assiri, Freedom Now submissions in Page 50 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

the rogue Hala Aldossari. She had requested from them to discuss her previous detention with European governments and human rights organizations to pressure the Kingdom.

16. Admitting that she had provided a recommendation to Amnesty International and the rogue Yahia Assiri to provide psychologists, transportation, and accommodation to human rights activists and to spend their vacations in Europe and to support them morally.

17. Admitting in 2018 that she had communicated with the Qatari citizen Tahani Alhajeri via WhatsApp, and she had provided her with a report prepared by the rogue Hala Aldossari named "A Comparison on Women’s Status in GCC Countries". 18. Admitting that she had completed a UN exam to work with the UN. She had sent her resume mentioning that she is a human rights activist, and that she had been arrested several times and that she is on a travel ban. She had also mentioned about her academic level.

19. Admitting that the rogue Yahia Assiri has strong relationships with the British government since he participates and discusses with the British on reports from Saudi security agencies about "prisoners of conscious."

Freedom Now submissions in Page 51 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

PETITION TO:

UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION

Chairman/Rapporteur: Mr. José Guevara (Mexico) Vice-Chair on Follow Up: Ms. Leigh Toomey (Australia) Vice-Chair on Communications: Ms. Elina Steinerte (Latvia) Mr. Sètondji Adjovi (Benin) Mr. Seong-Phil Hong (Republic of Korea)

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

In the Matter of

Loujain Alhathloul Citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Government of the United Arab Emirates

Petition for Relief Pursuant to Resolutions 1991/42, 1994/32, 1997/50, 2000/36, 2003/31, 6/4, 15/18, 24/71

Submitted By: Maran Turner Adam Lhedmat Freedom Now 1750 K Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20006 United States of America +1 (202) 223-3733 (tel) +1 (202) 223-1006 (fax) [email protected]

September 17, 2019

1 Resolutions 1991/41, 1994/32, 1997/50, 2000/36, and 2003/31 were adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights to extend the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The Human Rights Council, which “assume[d]… all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights…” pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, GA Res. 60/251, March 15, 2006, at ¶ 6, later extended the mandate through Resolutions 6/4, 15/18, and 24/7. Freedom Now submissions in Page 52 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. IDENTITY ...... 3 II. ARREST ...... 3 III. DETENTION ...... 3 IV. DESCRIBE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ARREST AND/OR THE DETENTION AND INDICATE PRECISE REASONS WHY YOU CONSIDER THE ARREST OR DETENTION TO BE ARBITRARY ...... 4 A. Statement of Facts ...... 4 1. Human Rights Context in Saudi Arabia ...... 4 2. The Situation of Loujain Alhathloul ...... 4 B. Legal Analysis ...... 9 1. Saudi Arabia’s Detention of Ms. Alhathloul Constitutes an Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty under Categories I, II, III, and V ...... 10 2. The United Arab Emirates’ Detention of Ms. Alhathloul Constituted an Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty under Categories I and III ...... 19 V. INDICATE INTERNAL STEPS, INCLUDING DOMESTIC REMEDIES TAKEN ESPECIALLY WITH THE LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHROITIES, PARTICULARLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE DETENTION AND, AS APPROPRIATE, THEIR RESULTS OR THE REASONS WHY SUCH STEPS OR REMEDIES WERE INEFFECTIVE OR WHY THEY WERE NOT TAKEN ...... 20 VI. FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION . 21

Freedom Now submissions in Page 53 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETE D BY PERSONS ALLEGING ARBITRARY ARREST OR DETENTION

I. IDENTITY 1. Family Name: Alhathloul 2. First Name: Loujain 3. Sex: Female 4. Age at the Time of Detention: 28 5. Nationality: Saudi Arabia 6. (a) Identity Document (if any): Unknown (b) Place of Issue: N/A (c) On (date): N/A (d) No.: N/A 7, Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention): Ms. Alhathloul is a prominent activist and critic of the Saudi Government’s male guardianship system and a critic of the now-repealed Saudi ban on women driving. 8. Address of usual residence: Unknown, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

II. ARREST 1. Date of arrest: Arrested by the Abu Dhabi Police on March 13, 2018, transferred to Saudi Arabia and released on March 15, 2018, then arrested by Saudi State Security officers on May 15, 2018. 2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): The March 13 arrest occurred on a highway in Abu Dhabi; the May 15 arrest occurred at Ms. Alhathloul’s parents’ home in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority? Neither group showed a warrant. 4. Authority who issued the warrant or decision: N/A 5. Relevant legislation applied (if known): N/A

III. DETENTION 1. Date of detention: March 13, 2018, then May 15, 2018 2. Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration): From March 13, 2018 to March 15, 2018, then from May 15, 2018 until the date of submission. 3. Forces holding the detainee under custody: Currently, the Bureau of Investigations and Prosecution 4. Places of Detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention): On March 13, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was held by Abu Dhabi officers as they transported her to an airfield where she was placed on a Saudi plane. That day Saudi agents flew her to Riyadh and took her to Ha’er prison where she was held for two days. After she was released she was placed on a travel ban. On May 15, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was taken to Dhaban Prison in Jeddah, where she was held until approximately May 21, 2018, at which point she was transferred to an unknown hotel. On July 4, 2018, she was transferred back to Dhaban Prison, where she remained until December 14, 2018, when she was transferred to Ha’er Prison in Riyadh. As of the time of submission, Ms. Alhathloul remains in Ha’er Prison.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 54 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

5. Authorities that ordered the detention: Unknown 6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities: The Emirati authorities did not provide a grounds for the detention, however the Saudi Government stated that Ms. Alhathloul is detained for coordinating with activists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international organizations to promote change within Saudi Arabia. 7. Relevant legislation applied (if known): The Saudi Government only referenced one law in their indictment: Article 6 of the “Combatting Cybercrime” Royal Decree No. M/17, issued March 24, 2007.

IV. DESCRIBE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ARREST AND/OR THE DETENTION AND INDICATE PRECISE REASONS WHY YOU CONSIDER THE ARREST OR DETENTION TO BE ARBITRARY A. Statement of Facts Part 1 of the Statement of Facts provides background information on the current human rights context in Saudi Arabia in order to illustrate the Saudi Government’s pattern of violating the rights of activists. Part 2 of the Statement of Facts details the circumstances surrounding the arrest and continuing detention of Ms. Alhathloul perpetrated by the Saudi Government and the Emirati Government. 1. Human Rights Context in Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia’s well-documented practice of restricting fundamental freedoms is as notable for its pervasiveness as it is for its severity. The Country’s absolute monarchy limits almost all political freedoms and civil liberties.2 To maintain control, the Government relies on extensive surveillance, criminalization of dissent, appeals to sectarianism, and repression of minorities.3 In its 2019 Freedom in the World Report, Freedom House found that Saudi Arabia was among the most politically repressive countries in the world, giving it an aggregate score of 7 out of a possible 100, where 100 signifies full freedom.4 Women in Saudi Arabia face extensive discrimination in both law and practice,5 and harsh penalties are reserved for those women who push for gender equality.6 In his most recent report to the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders expressed concern about the treatment of women human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia, specifically singling out the Saudi Government for targeting individuals campaigning for women’s rights issues, including lifting the driving ban on women and the end of the male guardianship system.7 2. The Situation of Loujain Alhathloul a. Background Information Loujain Alhathloul is a prominent Saudi activist and human rights defender. Her work has focused on promoting women’s rights in Saudi Arabia by advocating against the country’s ban on women driving

2 Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2019: Saudi Arabia, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/saudi-arabia 3 Freedom House, supra note 2; Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east- and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2019: Saudi Arabia, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/saudi-arabia. 4 Freedom House, supra note 2. 5 Freedom House, supra note 2; Amnesty International, supra note 3; Human Rights Watch, supra note 3. 6 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding Observations on Saudi Arabia, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SAU/CO/3-4, para. 55 (Mar. 14, 2018), https://undocs.org/cedaw/c/sau/co/3-4 (raising concern over reports that women human rights defenders have “been subjected to harassment, violence and intimidation by law enforcement officials, as well as detention and ill-treatment, for their civic engagement”). 7 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, UN Doc. A/HRC/40/60, para. 44 (Jan. 10, 2019), http://undocs.org/a/hrc/40/60.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 55 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

and the restrictive rules around the male guardianship system.8 She has advanced her cause by raising awareness online, sharing information, coordinating with international human rights monitors, and conducting a “driving campaign” whereby she and other advocates began to drive in the streets of Saudi Arabia in defiance of the driving ban.9 Ms. Alhathloul has never resorted to or encouraged violence, either in connection with her advocacy activities or otherwise.10 Her first of two prior arrest occurred in 2014, when she was detained for 73 days after driving her car over the Saudi border from the United Arab Emirates, where she was living at the time and where she was licensed to drive.11 During that period of detention, Ms. Alhathloul was never charged.12 Ms. Alhathloul was also detained on June 4, 2017, when she was arrested at King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, Saudi Arabia.13 The next day, she was transferred by security forces to a detention center in Riyadh for questioning.14 She was subsequently released on June 7, 2017, without being charged or informed of the legal grounds for her arrest.15 International human rights monitors believe that the arrest was related to her women’s rights advocacy.16 b. Ms. Alhathloul’s Extraordinary Rendition from the UAE In March 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was living abroad while studying at the Sorbonne University campus in Abu Dhabi.17 On March 13, 2018, Abu Dhabi police stopped Ms. Alhathloul while she was driving on the highway. Without showing her a warrant or providing information on the grounds for her stop or arrest, the officers proceeded to arrest Ms. Alhathloul and transport her to a nearby airfield.18 Once at the airfield, Ms. Alhathloul was placed on a Saudi private jet staffed by Saudi individuals.19 The jet proceeded to transport Ms. Alhathloul to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.20 The Emirati Government did not provide any formal procedure for Ms. Alhathloul to defend her right to not be forcibly repatriated to Saudi Arabia. After arriving in Riyadh, she was immediately transported to Ha’er prison, where she was detained for two days without charge.21 On March 15, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was released from Ha’er prison.22 No formal charges were brought against Ms. Alhathloul, and the grounds for her rendition were not disclosed.23 However, a travel ban was placed on Ms. Alhathloul, as well as her entire immediate family.24 The travel ban prevented Ms. Alhathloul from returning to the UAE to continue her studies. Were Ms. Alhathloul not removed from the UAE and banned from leaving Saudi Arabia, the following events could not have occurred.

8 Ruth Michaelson, 'What They Did to Me Was So Horrific': Brutal Silencing of a Saudi Feminist, The Guardian (May 24, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/24/what-they-did-to-me-was-so-horrific-brutal-silencing-of-a- saudi-feminist-loujain-al-hathloul. 9 Id. 10 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 11 Id. 12 Tracy McVeigh, Fears for female Saudi activist as detention for driving a car is extended, The Guardian (Dec. 13, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/14/fears-saudi-female-acitivist-detained-driving-ban-loujain-al-hathloul. 13 Gulf Center for Human Rights, Update: Saudi Arabia: Womens’ Rights Activist Loujain Al-Hathloul Has Been Released (June 8, 2017), https://www.gc4hr.org/news/view/1618; Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia Detains Rights Activist Who Defied Women’s Driving Ban (June 5, 2017), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/saudi-arabia-detains-rights-activist-who- defied-womens-driving-ban/. 14 Gulf Center for Human Rights, supra note 13. 15 Id. 16 Id.; Amnesty International, supra note 13. 17 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Tamara Qiblawi and Sarah El Sirgany, Saudi women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul goes on trial in Riyadh, CNN (Mar. 13, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/middleeast/hathloul-trial-saudi-intl/index.html 21 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 56 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

c. Arrest and Incommunicado Detention On May 15, 2018 at approximately 7:00 PM, armed government officers from the Presidency of State Security raided Ms. Alhathloul’s family home in Riyadh and arrested Ms. Alhathloul,25 without showing an arrest warrant or providing a reason for the arrest.26 At the time, there was no official recognition of Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest or of her location of detention, and her family had no means of contacting her.27 Over the course of the next three days, the Government arrested seven other prominent activists in what Human Rights Watch decried as a “crackdown on women’s rights activists.”28 Moreover over the next two weeks, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that they were aware of at least 13 activists who were arrested in the ongoing crackdown.29 Close observers of Saudi Arabia recognized Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest and the wider crackdown as politically motivated.30 On May 18, the Government, via a State Security spokesperson, first acknowledged that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested.31 The following day, a misinformation and propaganda campaign began defaming Ms. Alhathloul and the other activists. On May 19, a Saudi newspaper, Okaz, published photos of the detained activists, including Ms. Alhathloul, calling them “traitors” to the Saudi Government.32 That same day, a local daily paper, Al-Jazirah, ran a story about the arrests, with a photo of Ms. Alhathloul in the heading, describing them as citizens who have betrayed the State.33 Human Rights Watch also reported that a notable pro-government Twitter account posted photos of the activists with the word “traitor” in red superimposed over their faces.34 After her arrest, and unbeknownst to her family at the time, Ms. Alhathloul was taken to Dhaban Prison in Jeddah, where she was detained for the next several days.35 Beginning at this point and continuing for over a month, Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado.36 Prison authorities did not allow her to contact her family or any legal representation.37 On approximately May 21, 2018, State Security officers removed Ms. Alhathloul from Dhaban and transferred her to an unknown hotel in Jeddah.38 While held at the hotel, Ms. Alhathloul was interrogated and tortured on multiple occasions by State officials.39 Officials subjected Ms. Alhathloul to electric shocks,

25 Id. 26 Id. 27 New York Times, My Sister Is in a Saudi Prison. Will Mike Pompeo Stay Silent? (Jan. 13, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/opinion/saudi-women-rights-activist-prison-pompeo.html. 28 Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia: Growing Crackdown on Women’s Rights Activists (May 23, 2018), https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/23/saudi-arabia-growing-crackdown-womens-rights-activists. 29 OHCHR, Press briefing notes on Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (May 29, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23134&LangID=E. 30 Notably, Jamal Kashoggi, who would later fall victim to the Government’s attempt to silence prominent critics, identified the arrest of Ms. Alhathloul as an attempt to repress political activist, stating that in light of her arrest, “Loujain should be celebrated now,” and that “[her detention] is unneeded right after the huge effort that MBS [Mohammed bin Salman] made in the United States, presenting himself as a reformer.” Loveday Morris, The High Price of Feminism in the “New” Saudi Arabia, The Washington Post (May 20, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-high-price-of-feminism-in-thenew- saudi-arabia/2018/05/20/99d6dfde-5c3f-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html. 31 Saudi Press Agency, @spagov, Twitter (May 18, 2018), https://twitter.com/spagov/status/997585420648173570?s =21 (in Arabic). 32 Nora Abdulkarim, @Ana3rabeya, Twitter (May 20, 2018), https://twitter.com/Ana3rabeya/status/998225776268009472 (in Arabic). 33 Al-Jazirah, Seven Arrested on Suspicion of Contact with Third Parties (May 19, 2019), http://www.al- jazirah.com/2018/20180519/ln27.htm (in Arabic). 34 Human Rights Watch, supra note 28. 35 New York Times, supra note 27. 36 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 37 New York Times, supra note 27. 38 Id.; Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 39 Ruth Michaelson, supra note 8.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 57 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

flogging, waterboarding, and threats of rape and sexual assault.40 Many of officials conducting the torture wore masks concealing their identity.41 However, on several occasions, Saud al-Qahtani,42 the former advisor to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, sat in on interrogation sessions, unmasked, to oversee Ms. Alhathloul’s torture.43 During one of the sessions, Mr. al-Qahtani told Ms. Alhathloul “I’ll kill you, cut you into pieces, throw you in the sewer system. But before that, I’ll rape you.”44 On June 19, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was finally allowed to call her parents,45 after more than one month of incommunicado detention.46 Ms. Alhathloul was not permitted to discuss any aspects of the case against her.47 Ms. Alhathloul was allowed to make several similar brief phone calls during her time detained at the hotel.48 On July 4, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was transferred back to Dhaban Prison, where she was held in solitary confinement.49 At this point, prison officials allowed Ms. Alhathloul’s father and mother to visit her for one hour once per month.50 The first visit with her family took place on July 25, 2018.51 Around mid-September, prison authorities moved Ms. Alhathloul from solitary confinement to be held alongside other activists arrested in the May 2018 crackdown.52 On August 30, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was brought before a judge for the first time.53 At this hearing, an investigating magistrate affirmed Ms. Alhathloul’s detention and an investigation against her.54 She was subsequently returned to Dhaban Prison. On December 3, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul received a visit from her parents during which she first disclosed that she was being tortured by Saudi officials.55 Ms. Alhathloul was able to show that her thighs were blackened by bruises from the torture.56 On December 5, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul made her first official complaint concerning the torture and her conditions in the jail.57 She presented the complaint to prison authorities for transfer to the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution.58 However, prison authorities refused to deliver the complaint and failed to provide a clear answer for why the complaint was not processed.59 On December 14, 2018, authorities transferred Ms. Alhathloul to Ha’er Prison in Riyadh, where she was held in solitary confinement for one day before being moved to housing with other activists arrested

40 Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia: Access for independent monitors urgently needed amid more reports of torture of activists (Jan. 25, 2019), amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/01/saudi-arabia-access-for-independent-monitors-urgently-needed- amid-more-reports-of-torture-of-activists/; Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 41 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 42 Saud al-Qahtani was subsequently identified as a key figure in the targeted assassination of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. See Agnes Callamard, Annex to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Investigation into the unlawful death of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi, UN Doc. A/HRC/41/CRP.1 (June 19, 2019), para. 98, 176, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/Inquiry.aspx. 43 Ruth Michaelson, supra note 8. 44 Id. 45 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 46 Ruth Michaelson, supra note 8. 47 Id. 48 New York Times, supra note 27. 49 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 50 New York Times, supra note 27. 51 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 52 Id. 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 New York Times, supra note 27; Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 56 New York Times, supra note 27. 57 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 58 Id. 59 Id.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 58 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

in the May 2018 crackdown.60 At this point, Ms. Alhathloul had still not been presented any formal indictment of the charges against her. On January 8, 2019, Ms. Alhathloul’s father submitted another complaint to the prosecutor’s bureau concerning the torture and mistreatment of Ms. Alhathloul.61 The public prosecutor announced that they were investigating allegations.62 On approximately January 15, an official from the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution met Ms. Alhathloul in prison to explain aspects of the judicial process.63 During this conversation, the prosecutor did not ask about or discuss the allegations of torture.64 On January 28, 2019, Ms. Alhathloul submitted a handwritten complaint detailing her torture to an official from the prosecutor’s bureau.65 Ms. Alhathloul’s father submitted, on February 19 and March 4, 2019, two additional formal complaints to the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution concerning the allegations of torture and mistreatment.66 However, the Public Prosecution has never formally responded to the complaints, and there has been no finding or recognition of Ms. Alhathloul’s abuse.67 d. Indictment and Pre-Trial Proceedings On March 10, 2019, Ms. Alhathloul’s father68 was notified that the first hearing in her case would be held on March 13, 2019, at 8:00AM before the Specialized Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over terrorism cases.69 At 11:30PM on March 12, State Security contacted Ms. Alhathloul’s father notifying him that the case was transferred from the Specialized Criminal Court to a court of general jurisdiction.70 On March 13, Ms. Alhathloul was first brought before a court and presented with an indictment outlining the charges against her.71 The indictment refers to 12 separate charges against her, the first four of which are reproduced in English below:72 (1) Inciting and inviting to change the political system in the Kingdom, and abolish the constitution by cooperating with Khaled Alomair on telegram to initiate a campaign on Twitter to request for a new constitution and designing some brochures for the campaign. (2) Participating in demanding for women's rights that have been guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women. The purpose was to help executing foreign agenda and gaining personal interests which override the rules implemented by the leadership, the constitution of the country and the privacy of the Saudi society and its custom. (3) Striving to serve the agenda inside and outside the Kingdom. The coordinated agenda corresponds with the movement of the media, which are in line with the "alleged rights" by demanding to abolish the male guardianship. Additionally, she had been participating in attending conferences and panels that are related to Saudi women's rights. And using her

60 Id. 61 Id. 62 Vivian Nereim, Saudis to Probe Allegations that Women Activists Tortured, Bloomberg (Jan. 13, 2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-13/saudis-said-to-probe-allegations-that-women-activists-tortured; Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 63 Id. 64 Id. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 Id. 68 Although he is not a lawyer, Ms. Alhathloul’s father is serving as her domestic legal counsel. The decision to have Ms. Alhathloul’s father represent was made because the family reasonably believed that hiring a lawyer would be seen as an adversarial stance that would not be looked upon kindly by the government officials and leading to a less favorable outcome in the proceedings against Ms. Alhathloul. 69 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 70 Id. 71 Id. 72 See Appendix A.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 59 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

platforms on social media to publish videos that are supporting these campaigns and promoting them as well. (4) Contacting: international organizations, rogues’ groups, terrorist organizations that are anti-Saudi, foreign journalists . . . The full indictment is reproduced in Appendix A. Other notable charges include “receiving financial support from an external organization to visit human rights organizations and to attend conferences and panels to speak about the status of Saudi women” (charge 5) and “participating in a documentary with British journalists to speak about her personal experience in prison” (charge 11).73 For most of the charges, the indictment lacks mention of the laws of Saudi Arabia. Only one of the alleged crimes (charge 12) makes reference to a law or decree.74 Following the presentation of the indictment, Ms. Alhathloul was provided two weeks to respond to the charges against her.75 On March 27, 2019, she successfully moved to extend the deadline to respond to the charges.76 On April 3, 2019, Ms. Alhathloul pled not guilty to the charges against her, and the trial judge set the next hearing date for April 17.77 On April 17, 2019, Ms. Alhathloul and her family learned that the scheduled hearing had been cancelled. There was no prior notice of the cancellation or the reasons for cancellation. Moreover, the hearing has not been rescheduled.78 At the time of this filing, Ms. Alhathloul’s trial has not progressed, and the Saudi Government has provided no explanation for the abrupt adjournment of the proceedings.79 e. Current Status Well over one year after her initial arrest, Ms. Alhathloul remains in detention, in Ha’er Prison in Riyadh.80 Although she had been detained alongside other activists arrested in the May 2018 crackdown, she is now held in isolation, as the other activists detained have since been released.81 Since the last hearing, officers from the Saudi Security Service have visited both Ms. Alhathloul and her parents in an attempt to persuade Ms. Alhathloul to sign documents testifying that she had not been tortured by government officers.82 At one point, the officers offered to release Ms. Alhathloul on the condition that she sign documents and a record video testifying that she was not tortured.83 She refused this deal.84 At present, the trial against Ms. Alhathloul remains at a standstill since the abrupt cancellation of the April 17 pretrial hearing, and the court has yet to reschedule this hearing.85 B. Legal Analysis Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have arbitrarily detained Ms. Alhathloul. Section IV.B.1 below details how Saudi Arabia’s arrest and continuing detention of Ms. Alhathloul is arbitrary under Categories

73 See Id., paras. 5, 11. 74 See Id., para. 12. 75 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 Id. 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Sarah El Sirgany and Tamara Qiblawi, Jailed Saudi activist rejects deal to deny torture for release, says family, CNN (Aug. 14, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/middleeast/saudi-hathloul-torture-intl/index.html; Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author. 83 Sarah El Sirgany and Tamara Qiblawi, supra note 82. 84 Id. 85 Communication with confidential source A.B., on file with author.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 60 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

I, II, III, and V of the Working Group’s Revised Methods of Work.86 Additionally, Section IV.B.2 proceeds to detail how the UAE’s arrest, detention, and eventual removal of Ms. Alhathloul amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under Categories I and III of the Working Group’s Revised Methods of Work. 1. Saudi Arabia’s Detention of Ms. Alhathloul Constitutes an Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty under Categories I, II, III, and V a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty under Category I A detention is arbitrary under Category I when there is no legal basis or justification for it.87 The Working Group has found Category I detention where (i) an individual is held incommunicado;88 (ii) the Government uses vague charges or laws to detain or prosecute an individual;89 (iii) an individual is arrested without substantive evidence to justify the arrest;90 and (iv) a State obtains custody over an individual via the practice of “extraordinary rendition.”91 In the present case, the Saudi Government has engaged in all four of these forms of Category I detention. i. Saudi Arabia Held Ms. Alhathloul Incommunicado The Working Group has consistently held that detaining a person incommunicado is a form of arbitrary detention under Category I on the grounds that such detention violates the right to challenge the lawfulness of one’s detention before a competent tribunal, as protected under articles 8, 10, and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.92 Incommunicado detention occurs where an individual is “deprived of their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods, held outside the reach of the law, without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas corpus.”93 In this context, the Working Group has affirmed that “secret and/or incommunicado detention constitutes the most heinous violation of the norm protecting the right to liberty of human being under customary international law.”94 In the present case, the Saudi Government held Ms. Alhathloul incommunicado for 35 days. When State Security officials arrested Ms. Alhathloul on March 15, 2018, they did not provide her family any

86 Under international law, an arbitrary deprivation of liberty is defined as any “depriv[ation] of liberty exception on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.” International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16), at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 UNTS 171, entered into force on Mar. 23, 1976 (hereinafter “ICCPR”), at art. 9(1). An arbitrary deprivation of liberty is expressly prohibited under international law. Id.; See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (hereinafter “UDHR”), at art. 9, (1948) (“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”; Body of Principles for the Protection of Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. Res. 47/173, 43 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 298, U.N. Doc. A/43/49 (hereinafter “Body of Principles”), at principle 2 (“Arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law . . .”). 87 A Category I deprivation of liberty occurs “[w]hen it is impossible for the government to invoke any legal basis under domestic law for detaining the individual . . . .” Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 16th session, A/HRC/16/47, Annex 8(b) (Jan. 19, 2011), https://documents-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/102/76/PDF/G1110276.pdf?OpenElement. 88 Wang Quanzhang et al. v. China, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 62/2018, paras. 55-56 (Aug. 24, 2018), https://undocs.org/a/hrc/wgad/2018/62. 89 61 Individuals v. United Arab Emirates, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 60/2013, para. 22 (Nov. 22, 2013), http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/wgad/60-2013.html; Judicaël et al. v. Republic of Congo, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 44/2014, paras. 26-37 (Feb. 4, 2015), http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/wgad/44-2014.pdf. 90 Gargari v. Mexico, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 58/2016, para. 21 (Nov. 25, 2016), https://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/Document.aspx?id=3283. 91 Zhiya Kassem Khammam al Hussain v. Saudi Arabia, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 19/2007, para. 18 (Nov. 22, 2007), https://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/Document.aspx?id=1952. 92 Wang Quanzhang et al. v. China, Opinion No. 62/2018, para. 55. 93 Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights While Countering Terrorism, Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42, p. 2 (May 20, 2010), https://undocs.org/A/HRC/13/42. The Special Rapporteur’s report has been recognized by the Working Group as identifying the extent of human rights violations associated with incommunicado detention. See UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report of the Working Group, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/44, fn. 27 (Dec. 24, 2012), 94 Id. at para. 60.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 61 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

information on where she would be held or how to contact her. Moreover, Ms. Alhathloul was not allowed to reach out to her family until June 19, 2018. During this 35-day period, Ms. Alhathloul had no access to judicial review of her detention, no access to her family, and no access to legal counsel. Accordingly, Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado and her detention is arbitrary under Category I. ii. Saudi Arabia Failed to Provide Any Legal Justification for Ms. Alhathloul’s Arrest and Continuing Detention The Working Group has emphasized that there must be a clear legal basis for an individual’s detention under the laws of the detaining State.95 Article 11(2) of the UDHR guarantees individuals the right to know what the law is and what conduct violates the law.96 In its General Comment No. 35, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted this principle to mean that “[a]ny substantive grounds for arrest or detention must be prescribed by law and should be defined with sufficient precision to avoid overly broad or arbitrary interpretation or application.”97 Saudi Arabia’s laws purport to guarantee similar protections. According to Article 36 of the Saudi Arabian Basic Law of Governance, “No one may be confined, arrested or imprisoned without reference to the Law.”98 Additionally, Article 35 of the Saudi Arabian Law on Criminal Procedure provides that no person shall be arrested or detained except on the basis of an order from the competent authority.99 That article also specifies that “any such person … shall also be advised of the reasons of his detention.”100 However, in Ms. Alhathloul’s case, the Government has failed to articulate the legal basis for her detention. When Ms. Alhathloul was arrested on May 15, 2018, officials failed to show any warrant, or other order issued by a lawful authority, that authorized her arrest. Moreover, the arresting officers also failed to provide verbal confirmation of any laws that Ms. Alhathloul might have allegedly violated that would justify her detention. Lastly, in the indictment that the Government brought against Ms. Alhathloul almost 10 months after her initial detention, 11 out of the 12 charges against her failed to make reference to any law that she might have violated. The failure to adequately justify Ms. Alhathloul’s detention by reference to Saudi legislation constitutes Category I detention. iii. Saudi Arabia Arrested and Detained Ms. Alhathloul Without Any Evidence that She Committed a Crime Both at the time that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested and when the indictment against her was released, the Government possessed no evidence that she had engaged in any activity that was a crime at the time of her detention and that was also not protected under well-established principles of human rights law. Ms. Alhathloul’s actions have been entirely peaceful. She has never engaged in past violent activities, and the Government does not allege that she, herself, has done specific violent acts or encouraged such acts. Moreover, the activities described in the indictment of Ms. Alhathloul, with one exception, have not been connected to any law that Ms. Alhathloul has allegedly violated. In the case of the single charge

95 See, e.g., 61 Individuals v. United Arab Emirates, Opinion No. 60/2013, para. 22; Judicaël et al. v. Republic of Congo, UN Opinion No. 44/2014, paras. 26-37. 96 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 11(2) (“No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.”). 97 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Persons), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, para. 22 (Dec. 16, 2014), available at https://undocs.org/ccpr/c/gc/35 [hereinafter “General Comment No. 35”]; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Mauritius, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/83/MUS, para. 12 (Apr. 27, 2005), available at https://undocs.org/CCPR/CO/83/MUS; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Russia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6 (Nov. 24, 2009), para. 24, available at https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6. 98 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Basic Laws of Governance, No. A/90, art. 36 (Mar. 1, 1992), https://www.saudiembassy.net/basic- law-governance. 99 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Law on Criminal Procedure, No. M/39, art. 35 (Oct. 16, 2001), http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/saudiarabia/criminal_proceedure.html. 100 Id.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 62 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

that is connected to a pre-existing law, Charge 12, the Government accuses Ms. Alhathloul of violating Article 6 of Royal Decree Number M/17, “Combatting Cybercrime,” for the following (a) Using social media apps to connect with individuals who are enemies of the country. (b) Joining groups on WhatsApp and Telegram that discuss abolishing male guardianship and giving women full rights that make them equal to men. In addition to coordinating campaigns that demand a new constitution for the country by setting up meetings and interviews that serve the campaign and by providing reports and information. (c) Taking and publishing videos with false information to damage the reputation of the Kingdom. (d) Violating previous pledges that she signed. Each of the above enumerated activities, as applied to Ms. Alhathloul, constitute protected expression under the UDHR, and accordingly these activities do not qualify as evidence sufficient to justify Ms. Alhathloul’s culpability under Article 6 of Royal Decree Number M/17. Specifically, sub-paragraph (a), as the Government reveals in the indictment, refers to Ms. Alhathloul’s communications with known human rights defenders. Sub-paragraph (b) describes protected political expression. Sub-paragraph (c) also describes protected political expression, as a government does not fall within the recognized exceptions to the right to freedom of expression, and accordingly cannot be defamed.101 Lastly, sub-paragraph (d), taken along with the entire indictment, does not reference any particular activities constituting a breach. As a result, the Government has failed to present a sufficient factual basis for Ms. Alhathloul’s detention, and accordingly, the Government has engaged in Category I detention. iv. The Saudi Government Orchestrated an Extraordinary Rendition to Gain Custody Over Ms. Alhathloul The Working Group has consistently found that engaging in the practice of “renditions” (also called “extraordinary renditions”) amounts to a violation of Article 9 of the UDHR and constitutes Category I arbitrary detention.102 The Working Group has defined an extraordinary rendition as “the informal transfer of a person from the jurisdiction of one State to that of another on the basis of negotiations between administrative authorities of the two countries (often intelligence services), without procedural safeguards . . . .”103 To determine whether a rendition has occurred, the Working Group will consider factors such as whether the transfer occurs outside of any legal procedure and whether the detainee receives any information about the proceedings initiated against him or her.104 The Working Group has also found that both the sending State and the receiving State maintain responsibility for the violation of international law.105 In the present case, the Saudi Arabia collaborated with the UAE to secure the rendition of Ms. Alhathloul (the UAE’s responsibility for the rendition is described in Section IV.B.2.a). The Saudi Government sought removal of Ms. Alhathloul without having begun any legal process in Saudi Arabia against her. Moreover, there is no indication that Saudi Arabia presented any relevant and necessary information—such as evidence of a warrant, an indictment, or evidence of an investigation—to Emirati

101 See, e.g., ICCPR, art. 19(3); Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 38 (Sep. 12, 2011), https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GC/34. 102 Zhiya Kassem Khammam al Hussain v. Saudi Arabia, supra note 91, paras. 18, 21; Ayman Ardenli and Muhammad Haydar Zammar v. Syria, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 08/2007, paras. 22, 25, https://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/Document.aspx?id=2335; see also Amine Mohammad Al-Bakr v. Afghanistan and the United States of America, Opinion No. 11/2007 (May 11, 2007), https://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/Document.aspx?id=2338. 103 Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/40, para. 50 (Jan. 9, 2007), https://undocs.org/A/HRC/4/40. 104 Zhiya Kassem Khammam al Hussain v. Saudi Arabia, supra note 91, para. 18. 105 See Amine Mohammad Al-Bakr v. Afghanistan and the United States of America, supra note 102, para. 15 (finding that Thailand violated international law for transferring the applicant, via extraordinary rendition, to the custody United States); Zhiya Kassem Khammam al Hussain v. Saudi Arabia, supra note 91, para. 18 (finding that Saudi Arabia violated international law for receiving the applicant via extraordinary rendition from Kuwait).

Freedom Now submissions in Page 63 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

officials to justify the transfer. Even after Ms. Alhathloul arrived in Saudi Arabia, officials did not present a warrant for her arrest or an indictment for charges against her. Then, she was released two days later, still, with no evidence of a legal basis for her arrest. All of this suggests that the transfer occurred without adequate legal process on behalf of the Saudi Government. Given that there was no evidence of a lawful basis for an extradition request, the Saudi Government actively knew or should have known that Ms. Alhathloul was being transferred without having been provided sufficient judicial safeguards. Moreover, the short time-frame and means of transfer suggests a high level of administrative coordination between the two governments. Ms. Alhathloul was deported via a private plane the very same day that she was arrested. Not only was the UAE prepared to quickly remove Ms. Alhahtloul, the Saudi Government was promptly prepared to receive her within a matter of hours after her arrest. This coordination occurred without a formal and public legal process in the UAE and without explicit notice provided to Ms. Alhathloul. The quickness of the transfer, the absence of a formal legal process, and the lack of a warrant or indictment from either Saudi Arabia or the UAE demonstrates that the transfer constituted an extraordinary rendition, in violation of Ms. Alhathloul’s rights under Article 9 of the UDHR. Ms. Alhathloul’s rendition was a precondition for the Saudi Government’s subsequent detention and torture of her. Following her rendition, the Saudi Government placed a travel ban on Ms. Alhathloul, which prevented her from returning to the UAE and facilitated her arrest on May 15, 2018. Because the Saudi Government’s current detention of Ms. Alhathloul directly stemmed from an extraordinary rendition, the detention falls within Category I. a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty under Category II A detention is arbitrary under Category II of the Working Group’s Revised Methods of Work when it results from the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms protected under international law, including the rights to freedom of expression and association.106 In the present case, the Government arrested and detained Ms. Alhathloul on the basis of her exercise of these rights. i. Saudi Arabia Targeted Ms. Alhathloul on the Basis of Her Exercise of Her Right to Freedom of Expression Protection for the right to freedom of expression is well established under international law. Article 19 of the UDHR provides that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”107 The right to freedom of expression is vital to the work of human rights defenders. In its General Comment 34, the Human Rights Committee explicitly stated that the right to freedom of expression protects discussion of human rights.108 Moreover, the Working Group has recognized the right of human rights defenders “to investigate, gather information regarding and report on human rights violations.”109 Furthermore, in Article 32(1), the Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR), ratified by Saudi Arabia in 2009, guarantees “the right to information and to freedom of opinion and

106 A detention is arbitrary under Category II “when the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13-14 and 18-21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18-19, 21-22 and 25-27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Methods of Work of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/33/66, para. 8b [hereinafter “Revised Methods of Work”]. 107 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 19. 108 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34: Article 19 (Freedom of Expression), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 11 (Sep. 12, 2011), available at https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GC/34 [hereinafter “General Comment No. 34”]. 109 Hassan Ahmed Hassan Al-Diqqi v. United Arab Emirates, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 8/2009, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/30/Add.1 (Sep. 1, 2019), para. 18, available at https://undocs.org/A/HRC/13/30/Add.1. Although the Working Group came to this conclusion by referencing the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it noted that “in the Working Group’s view” the rights and principles of the Declaration “are based on human rights standards enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Charter of the United Nations.” Id.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 64 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

expression, as well as the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of geographical boundaries.”110 In the present case, Ms. Alhathloul was arrested and detained on the basis of and in retaliation for her exercise of her right to freedom of expression. The first indication of the Government’s motivation for arresting Ms. Alhathloul comes from the fact that she was arrested in connection with a widespread crackdown on human rights defenders. Most of those arrested in the crackdown, including Ms. Alhathloul, had a history of advocating against Saudi Arabia’s discriminatory ban on issuing driving licenses to women. The Government proceeded to house the arrested advocates all together in prison, further indicating their connection. The Government’s motivation for the arrest and detention of Ms. Alhathloul is most evident in the indictment against her. The indictment charges Ms. Alhathloul with “[p]articipating in demanding for women's rights that have been guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women . . .”, “demanding to abolish male guardianship,” and “[p]articipating in a documentary with British journalists to speak about her personal experience in prison.” Moreover, the indictment presents the following “facts” in support of the charges: Ms. Alhathloul admitted “that she had coordinated with the detainee Eman Alnafjan to inform Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about the recent decision from security agencies to place several human rights activists on travel ban,” and she admitted “that she had contacted around 15-20 foreign journalists to provide them with information about women's issues in the Kingdom.” These activities, as well as many others identified in the indictment, constitute fundamental expressive activity that Ms. Alhathloul conducted in the service of her role as an activist and human rights defender. Accordingly, the Saudi Government’s attempt to detain and punish her on the basis of this activism constitutes a clear instance of suppression of her right to freedom of expression. ii. Saudi Arabia Targeted Ms. Alhathloul on the Basis of Her Exercise of Her Right to Freedom of Association The right to freedom of association is protected under Article 20(1) of the UDHR, which affirms that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”111 Similarly, Article 24(6) of the ACHR guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of association.112 Furthermore, the Human Rights Council has specifically called for states to fully respect and protect the rights of all individuals to associate freely, especially for persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs and human rights defenders.113 In the present case, the Saudi Government has charged and is currently holding Ms. Alhathloul merely on the basis of her association and connections with journalists, human rights defenders, international human rights monitors, and the United Nations. For example, Charge 3 of the indictment, accuses her of “participating in attending conferences and panels that are related to Saudi women's rights.” Charge 4 accuses her of merely “contacting” “international organizations,” “foreign journalists,” and “embassies of foreign governments.” Additionally, Charge 9 accuses Ms. Alhathloul of “[t]aking advantage of her previous detention and travel ban to include it in her resume, to apply for a job at the United Nations.” Restricting the activities referenced in the above charges constitutes a restriction of Ms. Alhathloul’s ability to associate with individuals and organizations around the world in furtherance of her advocacy mission to ensure equality for women in Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, detaining Ms. Alhathloul on the basis of these charges constitutes a restriction on her right to freedom of expression.

110 League of Arab States, Arab Charter on Human Rights (adopted May 22, 2004, entered into force Mar. 15, 2008), reprinted in 12 Int'l Hum. Rts. Rep. 893 (2005), available at http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/loas2005.html. 111 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 20(1). 112 Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 24(6) (“Every citizen has the right . . . (6) to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.”). 113 UN Human Rights Council, Res. 15/21, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/15/21, para 1, (6 Oct. 2010), available at https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/15/21.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 65 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

iii. None of the Recognized Exceptions Apply in This Case Although the rights to freedom of expression and association are not absolute, none of the exceptions to these rights apply to Saudi Arabia’s repression of Ms. Alhathloul’s rights. Under international law, the rights to freedom of expression and association may only be restricted in limited circumstances, and the Human Rights Committee has established a three-part “strict test of justification” in analyzing limitations on such fundamental rights.114 For a given limitation to be permissible, the limitation must (1) be provided for by law, (2) serve an enumerate purpose, and (3) be necessary to achieve that purpose.115 The enumerated purposes for which a Government may restrict these fundamental rights are to protect national security, public safety and public order, public health, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The ACHR provides for a near identical test for permissible restrictions of the right to freedom of expression116 and association.117 The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that such restrictions must not “put in jeopardy the right itself.”118 It is not sufficient for a government to merely invoke one of the enumerated exceptions, but must “specify the precise nature of the threat” posed by the protected activity,119 establish a “direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat,” and demonstrate why the limitation was necessary.120 Furthermore, in the case of the right to freedom of expression, the Human Rights Committee has been clear that paragraph 3 never be used to justify “the muzzling of any advocacy of . . . human rights.”121 The present case, as noted above, the Saudi Government has targeted, arrested, and detained Ms. Alhathloul on the basis of her advocacy activities. Accordingly, there is no interpretation of the Government’s actions that would not “put in jeopardy the right itself.” Furthermore, the Government’s failure to reference relevant legislation in its indictment of Ms. Alhathloul results in her detention not meeting the “provided for by law” condition of the test. Additionally, given that Ms. Alhathloul has never engaged in, advocated, or encouraged violence, her detention is not necessary to serve any legitimate purpose. Accordingly, the Government may not avail itself of any of the permissible exceptions to the rights of freedom of expression and association. c. Arbitration Deprivation of Liberty under Category III According to Category III of the Working Group’s Revised Methods of Work, a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary “[w]hen the total or partial non-observance of international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the UDHR 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.”122

114 Park v. Republic of Korea, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 628/1995, UN Doc. CCPR/C/64/D/628/1995, para. 10.3, (3 Nov. 1998). 115 Shin v. Republic of Korea, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 926/2000, UN Doc. CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000, para 7.2 (16 March 2004). 116 Article 32(2), referring to the right to freedom of expression, provides that Such rights and freedoms shall be exercised in conformity with the fundamental values of society and shall be subject only to such limitations as are required to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others or the protection of national security, public order and public health or morals.” Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 32(2). 117 Article 24(7), referring to the right to association, provides that “No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 24(7). 118 General Comment No. 34, supra note 108, para. 21. 119 Sohn v. Republic of Korea, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 518/1992, UN Doc. CCPR/C/54/518/1992, para. 10.4 (July 19, 1992). 120 General Comment No. 34, supra note 108, para. 35. 121 Id., at para. 33. 122 Revised Methods of Work, supra note 106, Category III, para. c.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 66 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Due process is at the core of the right to a fair trial. The minimum international standards of due process are established in the UDHR, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (the “Body of Principles”), and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Mandela Rules”).123 i. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right Not to Be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest Article 9 of the UDHR guarantees that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”124 This right is reiterated Principles 2 and 36(2) of the Body of Principles.125 The Human Rights Committee has interpreted this right to mean that “procedures for carrying out legally authorized deprivation of liberty should also be established by law and States parties should ensure compliance with their legally prescribed procedures.”126 Under Article 14(1) of the ACHR, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, search or detention without a legal warrant.”127 Article 16(1) of the ACHR further requires authorities to promptly notify an individual of the charges against them.128 Moreover, Principle 10 of the Body of Principles requires that arrestees be notified of the grounds for their arrest at the moment they are arrested.129 In the present case, Ms. Alhathloul was not informed of the grounds for her arrest at the time she was seized and detained on May 15, 2018, which is a direct violation of the UDHR, ACHR, and the Body of Principles. In connection with the arresting officers’ failure to notify Ms. Alhathloul of the legal reasons for her arrest, the officers did not show Ms. Alhathloul a warrant, and there is no indication that such a warrant exists. Furthermore, even with the filing of an indictment against Ms. Alhathloul, there is little certainty about what laws she has allegedly violated, given the absence of reference to specific legal provisions within the indictment. Accordingly, the pretrial detention of Ms. Alhathloul is unfounded, and the denial of her release is a violation of Article 9 of the UDHR, articles 14(1) and 16(1) of the ACHR, and principles 2, 10, and 36(2) of the Body of Principles. ii. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to Be Promptly Brought Before a Judicial Authority The Human Rights Committee has found that protecting the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, as guaranteed under Article 3 of the UDHR, requires States to ensure prompt judicial review of anyone deprived of liberty by arrest or detention.130 Similarly, Article 14(5) of the ACHR guarantees that “[a]nyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.” In the present case, Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado for over a month after her initial arrest and was not provided access to a judicial authority to evaluate the legality of her arrest. Moreover, Ms. Alhathloul was not brought before any judge until August 30, 2018, when she was presented before an investigating judge who affirmed her detention. Given that this hearing occurred over three months after her initial arrest, the Government failed to respect Ms. Alhathloul’s right to prompt judicial review of her detention. Saudi Arabia’s violation of this right enabled other violations, such as torture, to occur while Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado during this time. As a result, Saudi Arabia violated Ms. Alhathloul’s rights under Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 14(5) of the ACHR.

123 Id. at Category III, paras. 7(a)-(b). 124 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 9. 125 Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 2, 36(2). 126 General Comment No. 35, supra note 97, para. 23. 127 Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 14(1). 128 Id. at art. 16(1). 129 Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 10. 130 General Comment No. 35, supra note 97, paras. 2, 39.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 67 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

iii. Saudi Arabia Violated the Prohibition on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment The right to be free from torture is well established under international law. Article 5 of the UDHR affirms that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”131 Moreover, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), to which Saudi Arabia is party, requires governments to take steps to prevent torture and punish perpetrators.132 This right is also protected under Principle 6 of the Body of Principles, rules 1 and 43 of the Mandela Rules, and Article 8 of the ACHR.133 Any imposition of suffering that is not severe enough to qualify as torture still constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,134 which term “should be interpreted so as to extend to the widest possible protections against abuses, whether physical or mental . . . .”135 International law’s particular concern with torture as an interrogatory tool is reflected in the definition of torture in CAT, which defines the term as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession . . . .”,136 as well as in Principle 21(2) the Body of Principles which guarantees that “no detained person while being interrogated shall be subject to violence, threats or methods of interrogation which impair his capacity of decision or his judgment.”137 On multiple occasions, the Government tortured Ms. Alhathloul, both as reprisal for her advocacy activities and to coerce “confessions” from her. Between approximately May 21 and July 4, 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was repeatedly tortured during interrogation sessions at an undisclosed hotel in Jeddah. Ms. Alhathloul was subjected to electric shocks, flogging, waterboarding, and threats of rape and sexual assault. During interrogation sessions, State Security officials intentionally used these actions to inflict severe pain and suffering on Ms. Alhathloul, and accordingly these actions constitute a violation of the prohibition on torture. Despite the Government’s obligation to investigate and prosecute instances of torture, the Saudi Government has taken active steps to cover up the torture of Ms. Alhathloul. Officers from State Security has attempted to pressure Ms. Alhathloul to sign documentation that she was never tortured while in custody. This is after both Ms. Alhathloul and her father had made multiple complaints to the office of the Public Prosecutor notifying them that torture had occurred. Moreover, the identity of one of Ms. Alhathloul’s torturers, Saud al-Qahtani, is known, and the Saudi Government has taken no concrete steps to investigate or hold him accountable for his crimes. Due to government agents’ use of violence and threats of violence against Ms. Alhathloul during her detention, Saudi Arabia violated Article 5 of the UDHR, Articles 2, 5, 16 of the CAT, Principles 6 and 21(2) of the Body of Principles, Rules 1 and 43 of the Mandela Rules, and Article 8 of the ACHR. iv. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to Release Pending Trial Principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles affirm that, except in special cases, a criminal detainee is entitled to release pending trial.138 The Human Rights Committee has clarified the standard,

131 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 9. 132 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc. A/RES/39/46, arts. 2, 5, 16 (Dec. 10, 1984) [hereinafter CAT]. 133 Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 6; Mandela Rules, supra note 86, rules 1, 43; Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 8. 134 M. Nowak, UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, 445, 2nd ed., Kehl am Rhein: Engel, 163 (2005). 135 Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 6(1) 136 CAT, art 1(1). 137 Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 21(2). Also, “it shall be prohibited to take undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess…” Id., principle 21(1). 138 Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 38, 39.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 68 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

stating that “[d]etention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. . . .”139 Moreover, in Article 14(5), the ACHR assures that “[p]re- trial detention shall in no case be the general rule.”140 The Government lacks any justification for holding Ms. Alhathloul in pre-trial detention for, what has now been, 18 months. As noted above, Ms. Alhathloul has never engaged in violent activities; her advocacy has always of a peaceful nature; and she has not advocated for or encouraged violence. Accordingly, holding her in pre-trial detention is a violation of principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles and Article 14(5) of the ACHR. v. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to be Tried Without Undue Delay Article 10 of the UDHR provides that “[e]veryone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal . . . .”141 The Human Rights Committee has emphasized “[a]n important aspect of the fairness of a hearing is its expeditiousness.”142 Similarly, the ACHR, under Article 14(6), guarantees that “[a]nyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to petition a competent court in order that it may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful (emphasis added).”143 With respect to the right to a trial, the Human Rights Committee has found that undue delay must be avoided at all stages of a criminal proceeding, from the commencement to the end of the trial.144 Ms. Alhathloul was held for 10 months before her trial began. The Government did not provide any justification for the excessive length of the investigatory period, and as noted above, the Government lacked a basis for the arrest and detention of Ms. Alhathloul. Accordingly, the excessive investigation period constituted undue delay of Ms. Alhathloul’s right to a trial. More recently, the trial court, without prior notice or justification has stalled proceedings since April 17, 2019. By refusing to schedule hearings, the Government is effectively depriving Ms. Alhathloul’s right to review of her case by a competent tribunal without undue delay. Accordingly, the Government has violated Ms. Alhathloul’s rights under Article 10 of the UDHR and Article 14(6) of the ACHR. d. Arbitration Deprivation of Liberty under Category V According to Category V of the Working Group’s Revised Methods of Work, a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary “[w]hen the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on . . . political or other opinion . . . .”145 Importantly, Category V detention only occurs when the underlying discrimination “aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings.”146 As mentioned above, Ms. Alhathloul was targeted, arrested, and detained on the basis of her political opinions concerning the equality of men and women within Saudi Arabia. It was because Ms. Alhathloul shared this opinion, to great effect, that she was detained. Thus, arresting her, and other Saudi feminist activists, constitutes discrimination on the basis of a political opinion, namely the opinion that women should maintain comparable rights as men within Saudi Arabia. Moreover, by detaining individuals for their promotion of gender equality, the Saudi Government was directly engaging in discrimination that

139 General Comment No. 35, supra note 97, para. 38. 140 Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 14(5). 141 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 10. 142 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32: Article 14 (Fair Trial), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, para. 27 (Aug. 23, 2007), available at https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GC/32. 143 Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 14(6). 144 General Comment No. 32, supra note 142, para. 35. 145 Revised Methods of Work, supra note 106, Category V, para. e. 146 Id.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 69 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

“aimed towards . . . ignoring the equality of human beings,” in this case, ignoring the equality of men and women. As a result, the Government’s detention of Ms. Alhathloul constituted an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under Category V. 2. The UAE’s Detention of Ms. Alhathloul Constituted an Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty under Categories I and III a. Arbitration Deprivation of Liberty under Category I As detailed in Section IV.B.1.a above, the Working Group has found that extraordinary rendition amounts to a violation of Article 9 of the UDHR and a resulting deprivation of liberty constitutes Category I arbitrary detention.147 Furthermore, the UAE has enacted legislative protections for individuals subject to extradition. Under Article 11(3) of Federal Law No. 39 of 2006, titled On International Judicial Co- Operation In Criminal Matters, any foreign State requesting surrender of an individual must provide, among other information, a copy of an arrest warrant issued by a competent judicial authority which indicates “the type of crime, the acts attributed to the requested person, date and time of its commitment . . . .”148 Moreover, Article 17 states that any individual subject to extradition “shall be submitted to the competent Public Prosecution within forty eight hours from the date of his arrest, and the Public prosecution must inform him of the reason for arrest, the content of the request for surrender, the existing evidences, documents related to the request.”149 Lastly, Article 19 requires that a “competent court” review extradition requests “in the presence of the Public Prosecution, the requested person, and his attorney.”150 In the present case, the UAE neither followed international standards of due process nor its own laws regulating the surrender of persons to foreign States. Firstly, there is no indication that the UAE received any arrest warrant or indictment of charges from Saudi Arabia concerning Ms. Alhathloul (as there is no indication that any such documents exist). Secondly, Ms. Alhathloul was not presented before a Public Prosecutor in the UAE and informed of the grounds for her transfer to Saudi Arabia, as required under UAE law. Lastly, there was no hearing, trial, or judgment by a competent judicial authority in the UAE authorizing Ms. Alhathloul’s transfer to Saudi Arabia. As described in Section IV.B.1.a.ii above, the short time-frame and means of transfer suggests a high level of administrative coordination between the two governments. As a result, UAE authorities circumvented legal procedures and protections to transfer Ms. Alhathloul to Saudi Arabia. The UAE’s extraordinary rendition violated Article 9 of the UDHR and her arrest and detention by Emirati authorities amounted to a deprivation of liberty under Category I. b. Arbitration Deprivation of Liberty under Category III i. The UAE Failed to Notify Ms. Alhathloul of the Charges Against Her or the Grounds for Her Detention As noted above, Article 9 of the UDHR, Principle 10 of the Body of Principles, and articles 14(1) and 16(1) of the ACHR, which the UAE ratified in 2008, require that arrested individuals be presented a warrant and informed of the grounds for their detention.151 Furthermore, the UAE’s Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 guarantees those subject to extradition the right to be notified of the charges against them in the requesting country.152 In the present case, the Abu Dhabi police officers arresting Ms. Alhathloul did not present her with a warrant or inform her of any charges against her in Saudi Arabia. Given that a private

147 Zhiya Kassem Khammam al Hussain v. Saudi Arabia, supra note 102, para. 18; UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, surpa note 103, para. 50. 148 United Arab Emirates, Federal Law No. 39 of 2006, On International and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters, art. 11(3), (Oct. 31, 2006), available at https://elaws.moj.gov.ae/UAE-MOJ_LC-En/00_JUDICIARY/UAE-LC-En_2006-10- 31_00039_Kait.html?val=EL1&Words=Federal%20Law%20No%2039#Anchor6. 149 Id. at art. 17. 150 Id. at art. 19. 151 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 9; Body of Principles, supra note 86, prin. 10; Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, arts. 14(1), 16(1); see also General Comment No. 35, supra note 97, para. 23. 152 United Arab Emirates, Federal Law No. 39 of 2006, supra note 148, art. 11(3).

Freedom Now submissions in Page 70 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

plane was waiting for Ms. Alhathloul, the officers had foreknowledge of the arrest, and accordingly had the opportunity to seek a warrant. However, by forgoing to the opportunity to obtain a warrant, the UAE violated Article 9 of the UDHR, Principle 10 of the Body of Principles, and articles 14(1) and 16(1) of the ACHR, and accordingly her detention fell within Category III. ii. The UAE Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to Have Her Detention Reviewed by a Court Both Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 14(6) of the ACHR protect the right to have one’s detention reviewed by an independent court.153 However, the UAE denied Ms. Alhathloul access to a court to review the lawfulness of her detention. Additionally, the UAE’s Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 guarantees those subject to extradition the right to have the legality of their removal reviewed by a competent court.154 When Abu Dhabi police arrested Ms. Alhathloul and immediately transferred her to Saudi authorities at the airport, they denied her the ability to have her arrest, transfer, and rendition reviewed by a court. The quickness of the transfer circumvented any possible judicial review of the legality of the rendition, and it denied Ms. Alhathloul the opportunity to claim protections guaranteed under both international human rights law and Emirati law. iii. The UAE Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to an Attorney Article 16(3) of the ACHR guarantees each individual the right to be represented by a lawyer of his or her own choosing when facing criminal charges.155 The UAE’s Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 extends this right to individuals facing extradition.156 However, in the present case, Ms. Alhathloul was not provided the opportunity to obtain counsel to defender her interests against extradition to Saudi Arabia. After her arrest by Abu Dhabi police, Ms. Alhathloul had no opportunity to contact legal representation, family, or friends. As a result, the UAE government violated Article 16(3) of the ACHR as well as their own legislation on removal. The UAE’s detention of Ms. Alhathloul thus falls within Category III.

V. INDICATE INTERNAL STEPS, INCLUDING DOMESTIC REMEDIES TAKEN ESPECIALLY WITH THE LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHROITIES, PARTICULARLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE DETENTION AND, AS APPROPRIATE, THEIR RESULTS OR THE REASONS WHY SUCH STEPS OR REMEDIES WERE INEFFECTIVE OR WHY THEY WERE NOT TAKEN Since her detention, Ms. Alhathloul and her family have pursued two avenues to secure her release. First, Ms. Alhathloul has attempted to vindicate her rights through trial, as she is aware of her innocence. However, since April 17, 2019, the trial court has refused to schedule hearings, cutting off her access to any remedies that might be available through the court system. Second, Ms. Alhathloul has attempted to negotiate a plea deal with the Government in exchange for her release. However, as a condition for the deal, the Government has required that Ms. Alhathloul sign documentation testifying that she was not tortured in detention. Because she refuses to sign such documentation, an agreement for her release has not been possible.

153 UDHR, supra note 86, art. 3; see General Comment No. 35, supra note 97, paras. 2, 39 (finding that the right to liberty and security of person requires judicial review of the legality of detention). 154 United Arab Emirates, Federal Law No. 39 of 2006, supra note 148, art. 19. 155 Arab Charter on Human Rights, supra note 110, art. 16(3). 156 United Arab Emirates, Federal Law No. 39 of 2006, supra note 148, art. 17.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 71 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

VI. FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION Maran Turner Adam Lhedmat Freedom Now 1750 K Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20006 United States of America +1(202) 223-3733 (tel.) +1(202) 223-1006 (fax) [email protected]

Date: September 17, 2019

Signature:

Freedom Now submissions in Page 72 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

APPENDIX A Below is an English translation of the Saudi Government's indictment against Ms. Alhathloul, followed by a copy of the original in Arabic Arrested since May 15, 2018 at the State Security prison

Following crimes:

4. Contacting

5. Receiving financial support from an external organization to visit human rights organizations and to attend conferences and panels to speak about the status of Saudi women.

8. Supporting the organization "Hassem" which had been terminated by a verdict, and writing and retweeting tweets showing sympathy to the organization.

9. Taking advantage of her previous detention and travel ban to include it in her resume, to apply for a job at the United Nations.

10. Setting up meetings at her father's house with employees of embassies to discuss her story about her previous detention at Alha'er prison.

11. Participating in a documentary with British journalists to speak about her personal experience in prison.

d) Violating previous pledges that she signed.

9. Admitting that she had contacted around 15-20 foreign journalists to provide them with information about women's issues in the Kingdom. Among those journalists are Sarah from Reuters and Vivian.

13. Admitting that she had contacted the rogue Omar Abdulaziz and she had helped him to get in touch with Amnesty International to improve his situation in Canada.

the rogue Hala Aldossari. She had requested from them to discuss her previous detention with European governments and human rights organizations to pressure the Kingdom.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 77 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Freedom Now submissions in Page 78 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Freedom Now submissions in Page 79 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Freedom Now submissions in Page 80 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Freedom Now submissions in Page 81 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Freedom Now submissions in Page 82 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul Freedom Now submissions in Page 83 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

SPECIAL RAPPORTEuRS,IN[lEP(NDENT aPERTS &WORKING GROUPS

PALAIS DES NATIONS - 1211 GENEV A 10, SWITZERLAND

www.oliclir.org a TEL: +41 22 917 9000 - FAX: +41 22 917 9008 a E-MAIL: [email protected]

Working Group on +Arbitrary Detention

9 December 2019

Dear Mr. Alhedmat,

I wish to draw your attention to the case of deprivation of liberty of Mrs. Loujain Alhathloul, which you submitted to the Workin.g Group on Arbitrary Detention for consideration under its regular communication procedure.

On 8 November 2019, the Working Group sent a communication on this case to the Government of Saudi Arabia. By letter dated 6 December 2019, the Governrnent of Saudi Arabia conveyed its response, which is attached.

We would appreciate receiving your comments on this response as soon as possible and no later than 23 December 2019, in order for the Working Group to consider the case during its 87'h session, which will take place in Geneva from 20 to 29 April 2020. We would be grateful if you could send your observations by email to the following address: [email protected].

Please note that all information you will provide to the Working Group on this matter will remain confidential at this stage of the procedure.

Yours sincerely,

Lucie Viersma Secretary Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Mr. Adam Alhedmat E-mail: [email protected] Freedom Now submissions in Page 84 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabieSaouditaaupresdasNationsUnias Geneve ' 518u

(8 November 2019) ffib3 (WGAD/2019/ARE/SAU/CASE) Freedom Now submissions in Page 85 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

m Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabiaSaouditaaupresdasNationsUnias Geneve 'a" !A-"')'1(5JJ

Y Freedom Now submissions in Page 86 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

pa Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabiaSaouditaaupresdasNationsUnias Gengve (.J Freedom Now submissions in Page 87 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

,da Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabieSaouditeaupresdasNationsUnies Geneva Freedom Now submissions in Page 88 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

g, Mission Permanent du Royaume d'ArabieSaouditaaupresdesNationsUnias Geneve Freedom Now submissions in Page 89 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabieSaouditaaupresdasNationsUnias Geneve *" !A-J")'1(5JJ

.rY 4 'i A/ %/ 'i YJ[I t,b 'l t t */ St Y 6gL-i ;gL-)l Y Freedom Now submissions in Page 90 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabiaSaouditaauprgsdasNationsUnias Geneve

J!4 , ;ffli c4>,hi ap ;'!i ,xi (* L3 (a3L-1 =3JA3 :%J!

IJ4'il 4 Juq3 ;Tyl )j % ,,)V J3y as,b ,3,a 4(bl JT %19 gl M 'uqyb- 4K)Li

V Freedom Now submissions in Page 91 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

gk Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabieSaou(itaaupresdasNationsUnias Geneve

A Freedom Now submissions in Page 92 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Mission Permanent du Royaume d'ArabiaSaouditeauprAsdasNationsUnies Geneve Freedom Now submissions in Page 93 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

M' Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabieSaouditeaupresdesNationsUnias Gengve

S. Freedom Now submissions in Page 94 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Mission Permanentdu Royaume d'ArabiaSaouditeauprbsdasNationsUnias Gengve '5i(3B

ru'll r

'Ls>iysl=3p3hp5i-l3't'," ;il I (hp. ,Jl ;JJJJ ,JQ I JLa;% a)L>)l 14,i La.i tt4L33; -Ljf 'L(L (4J :J gul,i3 a! () 4 ,JL%JI )l ,j Freedom Now submissions in Page 95 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

PETITION TO:

UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION

Chair-Rapporteur: Mr. Seong-Phil Hong (Republic of Korea) Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Leigh Toomey (Australia) Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Elina Steinerte (Latvia) Mr. José Guevara (Mexico) Mr. Sètondji Adjovi (Benin)

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Loujain Alhathloul Citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

SOURCE’S OBSERVATIONS ON THE REPLY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA

Submitted by:

Maran Turner Adam Lhedmat Freedom Now 1750 K Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20006 United States of America +1 (202) 223-3733 (tel) +1 (202) 223-1006 (fax) [email protected]

December 20, 2019

Freedom Now submissions in Page 96 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

I. THE REPLY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA FAILS TO MEET THE GOVERNMENT’S BURDEN OF PROOF

The government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s reply1 (“reply”) denies that Ms. Alhathloul’s detention is based upon her advocacy defending women’s rights and further denies that her arrest and detention violated the right to due process under international law. It is well established precedent of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“Working Group”) that the burden of proof shifts to the government once a source has provided a prima facie case of arbitrary detention.2 The following sections detail how the government’s reply fails to meet its burden for each claim raised in the petition to the Working Group in the matter of Ms. Alhathloul (“the petition”). The first section addresses those claims that the government’s reply fails to address, and thus concedes. The second section addresses those claims acknowledged in the reply, but inadequately rebutted.

A. Undisputed Claims

1. Saudi Arabia held Ms. Alhathloul Incommunicado

Section IV(B)(1)(a)(i) of the petition alleges that the government of Saudi Arabia held Ms. Alhathloul for 35 days, from March 15 to June 19, 2019. This section notes that government did not provide Ms. Alhathloul’s family with a means of contacting her, and during this 35-day period, Ms. Alhathloul had no access to judicial review of her detention, no access to her family, and no access to legal counsel. The government’s reply acknowledges that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested on March 15, 2018.3 The reply further notes several dates during which Ms. Alhathloul was allowed visitors, the earliest of which was July 25, 2018.4 Moreover, the earliest call that the government acknowledges allowing Ms. Alhathloul to make occurred on September 10, 2018.5 Additionally, there is no mention in the reply of when Ms. Alhathloul was first brought before a judge. Thus, by the government’s own account, no one from outside the government had access to Ms. Alhathloul from the time of her arrest until July 25, 2018 at the earliest, when she was allowed to receive her first visit from her family. Accordingly, the government has provided no facts disputing the allegation that Ms. Alhathloul was held without the ability to communicate with her family.

Moreover, the government notes, in paragraph 7 of its reply, that under the law of Saudi Arabia, the Prosecutor’s Office has the authority to order individuals to be held for a period of up 90 days without any communication or visits. This authority facially amounts to a power to order incommunicado detention. Notably, however, the government’s reply fails to mention whether the Prosecutor’s Office invoked such authority in Ms. Alhathloul’s case, and thus the mention of

1 An English translation of the government’s reply is attached as Appendix I. Paragraph numbers are added to the reply for ease of reference in this submission. 2 See Aramais Avakyan v. Uzbekistan, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. No. A/HRC/WGAD/2017, para. 53, (24 May 2017), available at http://www.freedom-now.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Opinion-29-2017- Uzbekistan.pdf. 3 Reply of the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Petition in the Matter of Loujain Alhathloul (hereinafter “Reply”), para. 2. 4 Id. at para. 6. 5 Id. 2

Freedom Now submissions in Page 97 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

this provision does not address the question of whether incommunicado detention was employed in this case.

As a result, the government has failed to provide any evidence or reasons disputing the allegation that Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado. Additionally, the government’s own account of the facts and the law support the allegation that Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado, because the date she was first allowed to speak to her family occurred over a month after her initial detention and because the law of Saudi Arabia, as interpreted by the government in its reply, permits incommunicado detention. Accordingly, the Working Group should find that the government held Ms. Alhathloul incommunicado, which amounts to arbitrary detention under Category I.

2. The Saudi Government Orchestrated an Extraordinary Rendition to Gain Custody Over Ms. Alhathloul

Section IV(B)(1)(a)(iv) of the petition alleges that the government of Saudi Arabia executed an extraordinary rendition, in collaboration with the government of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), to obtain custody over Ms. Alhathloul. This section details how Ms. Alhathloul was taken from the UAE without any formal process, without an opportunity to challenge her transfer, and without the Saudi Government having filed any formal indictment against Ms. Alhathloul with the government of the UAE. The Saudi Government does not make any reference to these events in its reply, and thus tacitly accepts their veracity.

3. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to Be Promptly Brought Before a Judicial Authority

Section IV(B)(1)(c)(ii) of the petition alleges that the government of Saudi Arabia failed to promptly bring Ms. Alhathloul before a judicial authority to review the legality of her detention. This section of the petition alleges that Ms. Alhathloul was first brought before a judge on August 30, 2018, several months after she was first detained. Although the government’s reply acknowledges that Ms. Alhathloul was eventually presented before a court,6 the government’s reply fails to contest that the first presentation occurred on August 30, 2018. Moreover, the reply makes no reference to any dates of court hearings. Accordingly, the government has failed to present any evidence contesting the allegation that Ms. Alhathloul was denied prompt access to judicial review of her detention. Thus, the Working Group should find that Ms. Alhathloul was denied due process and detained arbitrarily under Category III.

4. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to Release Pending Trial

Section IV(B)(1)(c)(iv) of the petition alleges that the government of Saudi Arabia denied Ms. Alhathloul the right to release pending trial. This section states that the government lacked any justification for denying Ms. Alhathloul release on bail. Ms. Alhathloul had never engaged in violent acts; her advocacy was peaceful; and she never encouraged violence. However, the government’s reply fails to present any justification for refusing pre-trial release to Ms.

6 Id. at para. 5. 3

Freedom Now submissions in Page 98 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

Alhathloul. The government’s reply does not claim that she is a risk to public security, a flight risk, or likely to destroy evidence. Accordingly, the government tacitly accepts the allegations that Ms. Alhathloul was wrongly denied the right to pre-trial release. Thus, the Working Group should find that Ms. Alhathloul was denied due process and detained arbitrarily under Category III.

5. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right to be Tried Without Undue Delay

Section IV(B)(1)(c)(v) of the petition alleges that the government of Saudi Arabia has violated Ms. Alhathloul’s right to be tried without undue delay. This section notes that the government held Ms. Alhathloul for 10 months before her trial began, and moreover the government has stalled proceedings since April 17, 2019, when the last hearing in the case occurred. However, the government’s reply fails to contest the dates mentioned above and moreover fails to provide any justification for the excessive delays. Accordingly, the government tacitly accepts the allegations that Ms. Alhathloul has been denied her right to trial without undue delay. Thus, the Working Group should find that Ms. Alhathloul was denied due process and detained arbitrarily under Category III.

B. Disputed Claims

1. Saudi Arabia Failed to Provide Legal Justification for Ms. Alhathloul’s Arrest and Continuing Detention

In its reply, the government denies that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested without a legal basis.7 Instead, the government claims, in paragraph 2 of its reply, that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested under accusation “of several crimes against State security and cyber-crimes that are punished according to the law of Countering Cybercrime, and also for being accused of committing crimes that are punished according to the general law, including communication and cooperation with individuals and organizations that are enemies to the Kingdom with the intent to cause damage to the Kingdom’s interest, which is punished according to the law of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism, and punished in the law of Countering Cybercrime in Article 1/6 . . . .” However, even in its own reply quoted above. the government, fails to specify more than one provision of written law that Ms. Alhathloul is accused of violating. The reply only specifies Article 1/6 of the law of Countering Cybercrime. And although the government references the law of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism, the government fails to specify which provisions of that law to which it refers, instead opting for vague descriptions of that law’s provisions. This overly broad description of the charges brought against Ms. Alhathloul matches the vagueness of the charges outlined indictment brought against her.8

7 Reply, para. 2. 8 A copy of the indictment against Ms. Alhathloul was attached to the petition. 4

Freedom Now submissions in Page 99 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

To avoid arbitrary detention under Category I, the Working Group has emphasized that there must be a clear legal basis for an individual’s detention under the laws of the detaining State.9 However, the vagueness with which the government describes the crimes against Ms. Alhathloul, both in the indictment and in its reply, fails to provide a sufficiently clear legal basis for her detention. Additionally, the government did not provide any further court documents or investigative materials demonstrating, with more specificity, the charges against Ms. Alhathloul. Accordingly, the government failed to meet its burden of proof, and thus, the Working Group should find that the government has not provided sufficient legal basis for Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest, amounting to arbitrary detention under Category I.

2. Saudi Arabia Targeted Ms. Alhathloul on the Basis of Her Exercise of Her Right to Freedom of Expression

In its reply, the government explicitly denies that Ms. Alhathloul was detained in retaliation for exercising her right to freedom of expression,10 and the government contends that Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest and detention were unrelated to her advocacy on behalf of women’s rights.11 The government’s reply presents two claims to support its position: first, the government claims that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested for legitimate crimes under Saudi law, including under the law of Countering Cybercrime, the law of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism, and the general law;12 second, the government claims that it protects freedom of expression for everyone in the country and that when expression is only restricted in the country when it falls within the exceptions provided for in international law.13 Neither of these claims directly rebut the allegations raised against the government.

With respect to the government’s first claim, the government, in its reply, has done little to displace the allegation that the charges against Ms. Alhathloul are more than a mere pretense, used to retaliate against Ms. Alhathloul for her advocacy. In paragraph 2 of its reply, the government vaguely states the charges for which Ms. Alhathloul is detained, but does not provide any evidence that the government has obtained in support of these charges. Because the government has access to any evidence against Ms. Alhathloul, it is incumbent upon the government to support the purportedly legitimate charges with such evidence, which it fails to do in its reply. In addition to the dubious legal and evidentiary basis for her detention, Ms. Alhathloul was disappeared in the context of a widespread crackdown on women’s rights defenders in Saudi Arabia.14 Moreover, the prosecutor’s indictment against Ms. Alhathloul charged her with “[p]articipating in demanding for women’s rights that have been guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women . . . .”15 Both the context in which she was arrested and the indictment against her demonstrate that she was targeted for her expressive activities. The government’s attempt in its reply to merely state otherwise is not sufficient to meet its burden of

9 See, e.g., 61 Individuals v. United Arab Emirates, Opinion No. 60/2013, para. 22; Judicaël et al. v. Republic of Congo, UN Opinion No. 44/2014, paras. 26-37. 10 Reply, para. 9. 11 Id. at para. 1. 12 Id. at para. 2. 13 Id. at paras. 1, 9. 14 OHCHR, Press briefing notes on Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (May 29, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23134&LangID=E. 15 See the copy of the indictment against Ms. Alhathloul, which is attached to the petition. 5

Freedom Now submissions in Page 100 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

proof, and accordingly, the Working Group should find that Ms. Alhathloul was targeted and detained for her expressive activities.

With respect to the government’s second claim that it only restricts expression when permissible under international law, not only does the government’s reply fail to present any argument for how the permissible limitations on expression would apply specifically in Ms. Alhathloul’s case, the government’s reply also misrepresents the scope of those limitations. In paragraph 9 of its reply, the government states that the right to freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia is limited in accordance with the Saudi Basic Law of Governance, which states that “all means of expression must use decent language [be respectful], comply with State laws, and contribute to informing the nation and support its unity, and any expression is prohibited that could lead to disorder, division, or that impacts State security.” However, this provision of the Basic Law of Governance clearly fails to comport with international standards concerning the right to freedom of expression. As discussed in detail in section IV(B)(1)(b)(iii) of the petition, restrictions on expression are only permissible when necessary to protect national security, public safety and public order, public health, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.16 The requirements under the Basic Law that expression be “decent,” “comply with State laws,” and “contribute to informing the nation and supporting its unity” do not fall within the enumerated purposes as they are not necessary to serve national security, public safety or order, health, and the rights of others. As a result, the Basic Law of Governance does not comply with international standards, and assuming the government followed the Basic Law in its treatment of Ms. Alhathloul, it is still possible that the government violated her right to freedom of expression.

Moreover, the government failed to present any reasons or evidence for why the detention of Ms. Alhathloul might fall within the permissible limitations provided under international law. The government’s general discussion on how Saudi law comports with international law is not directly relevant to the question of whether the government was excused in restricting Ms. Alhathloul’s expression. As a result, the government has failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Working Group should find that the government was not justified in detaining Ms. Alhathloul in retaliation for her expressive activities, and thus find that her detention is arbitrary under Category II.

3. Saudi Arabia Targeted Ms. Alhathloul on the Basis of Her Exercise of Her Right to Freedom of Association

As noted in the previous section, the government denies that Ms. Alhathloul was detained due to her advocacy activities and further claims that all residents enjoy the fundamental rights and freedoms.17 However, the government provides no specific evidence or reasons that suggest the government has respected Ms. Alhathloul’s right to freedom of association. As detailed in section IV(B)(1)(b)(ii) of the petition, part of the grounds for Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest is based up her association and connections with journalists, human rights defenders, international human

16 See Shin v. Republic of Korea, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 926/2000, UN Doc. CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000, para 7.2 (16 March 2004). 17 Reply, para. 1. 6

Freedom Now submissions in Page 101 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

rights monitors, and the United Nations. For example, Charge 3 of the indictment,18 accuses her of “participating in attending conferences and panels that are related to Saudi women's rights.” Charge 4 accuses her of merely “contacting” “international organizations,” “foreign journalists,” and “embassies of foreign governments.”19 Additionally, Charge 9 accuses Ms. Alhathloul of “[t]aking advantage of her previous detention and travel ban to include it in her resume, to apply for a job at the United Nations.”20 Restricting the activities referenced in the above charges constitutes a restriction of Ms. Alhathloul’s ability to associate with individuals and organizations around the world in furtherance of her advocacy mission to ensure equality for women in Saudi Arabia. The government does not contest that these allegations constitute a basis for Ms. Alhathloul’s detention. Instead, the government’s reply suggests that her detention is partly based upon “communication and cooperation with individuals and organization that are enemies to the Kingdom.”21 The government’s bare claims that it has guaranteed Ms. Alhathloul her fundamental rights and freedoms are not sufficient to meet its burden of proof, and accordingly the Working Group should find that her detention is arbitrary under Category II.

4. Saudi Arabia Violated Ms. Alhathloul’s Right Not to be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest

At the time of submission of the petition, there was no evidence to suggest that a warrant for Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest existed. However, in paragraph 2 of its reply, the government claims that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested in accordance with an arrest warrant obtained pursuant to Article 2 of the Code of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism. Despite claiming the existence of this warrant, the government did not attach a copy of the warrant to its reply, which would be entirely within its ability. Moreover, the government’s reply fails to mention whether the warrant was presented to Ms. Alhathloul’s family at the time of arrest and fails to state whether she or her family were informed of the charges against her at the time of arrest. The reply also does not mention the date that the warrant was issued, or more importantly, which authority issued the warrant, instead stating that warrant was issued by “the relevant authority.” For these reasons, the government has failed to substantiate its claim that a warrant exists, and moreover did not contest that no warrant was shown at the time of arrest. Accordingly, the Working Group should find that Ms. Alhathloul was detained arbitrarily under Category III.

5. Saudi Arabia Violated the Prohibition on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment

In its reply, the government claims that Ms. Alhathloul’s allegations of torture and sexual harassment were investigated by the Prosecutor General, who found that there was no evidence to verify her claims. The government’s reply fails to mention what steps were taken by the prosecutor general to investigate the allegations. Moreover, the reply does not provide any evidence to support the contention that the Prosecutor General conducted an investigation or to suggest that the investigation was thorough. As noted in section IV(A)(2)(c) of the petition, Ms. Alhathloul made two written complaints herself alleging torture, one on December 5, 2018 and

18 See the copy of the indictment against Ms. Alhathloul, which is attached to the petition. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Reply, para. 2. 7

Freedom Now submissions in Page 102 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

the other on January 28, 2019. Additionally, her father submitted three complaints concerning allegations of torture, on January 8, 2019, February 19, 2019, and March 4, 2019. However, no member of the prosecutor’s office followed-up with Ms. Alhathloul or her father concerning the complaints. Moreover, the government’s reply does not mention that any subsequent interviews of Ms. Alhathloul, prison officials, medical officials, or her family concerning her mistreatment were ever conducted. Accordingly, the government has not presented sufficient evidence or reasons to rebut the allegation that Ms. Alhathloul was tortured and ill-treated or the allegation that the government failed in its duty to investigate the allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

In paragraph 4 of its reply, the government outlines various procedures within the Kingdom that serve protect the rights of detainees, including the Crown Prince’s Council, which the government “consider[s] a mechanism of redress by the law,” and which is purportedly “open[] to all citizens or to anybody who has a complaint or a grievance, and every person has the right to communicate with the public authorities in relation to his own matters.” While the government’s reply does not state whether this Crown Prince’s Council has had any involvement thus far in investigating Ms. Alhathloul’s torture and ill-treatment, the government implies that the Crown Prince’s Council has the authority to intervene on Ms. Alhathloul’s behalf. However, these representations appear in tension with public statements made by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, concerning his capacity to intervene in the case of Ms. Alhathloul. In an interview with Norah O’Donnell published on September 29, 2019, the Crown Prince, when asked about Ms. Alhathloul’s detention, stated that he lacks the authority to free her, even if she were detained improperly, and that the decision rests entirely with prosecutors.22 If it is true that the Crown Prince lacks the authority to remedy the rights of those improperly detained, it would be a misrepresentation to hold his Council out as a “mechanism of redress” for “all citizens or to anybody who has a complaint or grievance.”

Moreover, in the same interview, the Crown Prince stated that he would personally follow-up on the allegations of torture.23 To date, we are unaware of any public or private efforts by the Crown Prince or his Council to this effect. Furthermore, the government’s reply, submitted months after this interview took place, fails to reference any investigation, either concluded or in progress, conducted by the Crown Prince’s Council, and the reply does not contain any documentary support to suggest that such investigation exists.

In response to the allegations that Ms. Alhathloul was held in solitary confinement, the government notes, in paragraph 9 of the reply, that Ms. Alhathloul is not “currently” in confinement, explicitly leaving open the possibility that she was held there previously. Additionally, the government claims in paragraph 7 that the law of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism authorizes the government to hold an individual in solitary confinement for 90 days, but the government notably fails to mention whether this provision was invoked in Ms. Alhathloul’s case to hold her in solitary. Accordingly, the government has not provided sufficient information to rebut claims of her solitary confinement for a period of her detention.

22 Norah O’Donnell, Mohammad bin Salman Denies Ordering Khashoggi Murder, But Says He Takes Responsibility or It, CBS 60 Minutes (Sep. 29, 2019), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mohammad-bin-salman-denies-ordering- khashoggi-murder-but-says-he-takes-responsibility-for-it-60-minutes-2019-09-29/. 23 Id. 8

Freedom Now submissions in Page 103 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Working Group should find that the government of Saudi Arabia has not sufficiently met its burden, and accordingly conclude that Saudi Arabia is arbitrarily detaining the Ms. Alhathloul in violation of international law.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 104 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

APPENDIX I Unofficial English Translation of the Reply from Saudi Arabia24

The response of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the letter from the WGAD (No. WGAD/2019/ARE/SAU/CASE) (November 8, 2019)

1. The aforementioned person has been detained under accusation of committing crimes that are punished under the law, as will be explained later, and she has not been detained because of what the aforementioned called peacefully defending women’s rights. The Kingdom’s laws prohibit any limitation on anyone’s behavior or detention or arrest, except according to Article 36 of the Basic Law of Governance, which provides security for all citizens and residents in the Kingdom, and the government does not have any detainees on the basis of the detainees’ exercise of their rights and freedoms. All of our citizens and residents enjoy their rights and the practice of their freedoms without any discrimination according to the regulations applicable in the Kingdom, and no one group regardless what they are called or named have any better preferences in enjoying those rights or freedoms, and anyone who is having their rights abused can file a complaint to the redress measures available. The Kingdom’s regulations obligate all state agencies to redress any human being regardless of their religion, race, gender, and nationality, and if any of the agencies or their representatives failed in enforcing any right, it is up to the victim to pursue any redress mechanism.

2. With respect to the location of the citizen, Loujain Alhathloul, she has been detained on May 15, 2018, and she is detained in the prison of General Investigation in Riyadh, according to an arrest warrant, after an arrest warrant was issued against her from the relevant authority according to Article 2 of the Code of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism, which states “the crimes cited in this law considered major crimes results in detention”, also she is accused of committing several crimes against State security and cyber-crimes that are punished according to the law of Countering Cyber- crimes, and also for being accused of committing crimes that are punished according to the general law, including communication and cooperation with individuals and organizations that are enemies to the Kingdom with the intent to cause damage to the Kingdom’s interest, which is punished according to the Code of Countering Terrorism and Financing Terrorism, and punished in the Law of Countering Cyber-crime in Article 1/6, which states “be punished in prison for no more than five years and a fine of no more than 300 Riyal or either of these punishments, any of these cyber-crimes: (1) production of what might damage the public order, religious values, public morals, sanctity of private life, or organize, disseminate, or preserve copies on any computer . . .”, and her case is still going through investigations, and the procedures that are taken against her are in line with the Kingdom’s obligations towards its commitment to the international standards related to human rights.

24 Paragraph numbers were added for ease of reference above.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 105 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

3. In relation to her allegations that she has been subject to torture and sexual harassment, the Prosecutor General has conducted several steps in investigating those claims at the time, there was no evidence at the time that proves what she claimed, and the Kingdom’s regulations have a set of guarantees and measures that ensures that no prisoner or detainee will be subject to torture, ill treatment or other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Article 2 from the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the arrest of any person, inspection, detention, or imprisonment except in the cases cited in the law, and the detention or imprisonment will only be in the designated area for the person and the period established by the relevant authority, also Article 54 from the same regulation states that treating detainees that preserves their dignity, prohibits any damages or abuses to them physical or psychological, and obligates the authority to inform them of the reason of their detention and allow them to communicate with any person of his choice to inform him of his arrest. Article 102 of the same code obligates that the interrogation of the suspect shall take place in a way that shall not coerce their will to express their opinion, it prohibits placing them under oath or using any coercive measure against them, and does not allow interrogation not to take place outside of the investigation entity, unless for necessity as established by the investigation body. Article 28 from the code of Prison and Detention, assures that it is not permissible to abuse prisoners or detainees by any type of abuse and cited disciplinary measures against employees who commit such abuses, be it civilians or military, except in the situation of criminal punishments, and Section 8 in Article 2 in Kingdom Decree No. 43 of 1958, includes that prohibition of mistreatment coercive under the duties of the person, like torture or cruelty, the confiscation of funds, deprivation of personal freedoms, which includes persecutions, fines, imprisonment, forced residence in a designated place, and the entrance of homes in illegal manners, all of these acts are punished with imprisonment up to 10 years, also the prosecutors oversee the work of the criminal police in relation to their duties in criminal investigation according to Article 20 from the Code of Criminal Procedure, also all prisons and detention facilities are subject to judicial, administration, health, and social inspection, according to Article 5 of Prison and Detention Code. The Public Prosecutor under Article 3 of its own regulations is tasked with oversight of prison and detention facilities or any other sites where punishment is being implemented, as well as to hear complaints of prisoners and detainees and validate the legitimacy of their imprisonment as well as the legality of keeping them in prison after the end of their prison terms and take necessary measures to release who has been detained or arrested without a valid reason, and implement what the law says against the violators who held people wrongfully, also Article 40 from the Code of Criminal procedure states that every person who knew about a prisoner or detainee that is being held illegally or in a non-designated detention facility has to inform the public prosecutors upon their knowledge have to go physically to the site where the person is being detained to conduct an investigation and to order the release of the prisoner if the detention has been done in an illegal manner, and has to file a case that is submitted to the relevant authorities to implement what the law says against the perpetrators.

4. Additionally, in order to strengthen the oversight in a way that guarantees the rights of prisoners and detainees the Saudi Human Rights Commission, in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 5 of its own regulations, conducts visits to prisons and

Freedom Now submissions in Page 106 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

detention facilities at any time without any prior approval from anyone and receives complaints related to human rights and investigates its authenticity and takes the legal actions in relation to it, also the National Human Rights Organization (one of the civil society organizations) conducts visits to prisons and detention facilities to receives complaints. So there have been bureaus for the Human Rights Commission and for the National Human Rights Organization opened in the prisons of the prosecutors to allow them to monitor prison conditions and to receive complaints directly. Regulations in the kingdom require all state agencies to redress any human being regardless of their religion, race, gender, and nationality and in the case of any of those agencies or their representatives violated anybody’s rights there is several mechanisms that act as an actual guarantee for human rights in accordance with the law including, judicial authorities, relevant government administrations and commissions, governmental and non- governmental organizations, as well as the King’s Council and the Crown Prince’s Council are considered a mechanism of redress by the law. Article 43 from the Basic Law states that “the King’s Council and the Crown Prince’s Council are opened to all citizens or to anybody who has a complaint or a grievance, and every person has the right to communicate with the public authorities in relation to his own matters.” Princes of areas or administrative governors take an active role in strengthening and protecting human rights and addressing violations. So the governorate regulation issued by Royal Decree No. 92/8 dated March 2, 1992, states that in Section C of Article 7 the princes of governorate have the obligation to guarantee people’s rights and freedoms and not to take any measure that violates those rights and freedoms unless punishment designated under Sharia or the law [“hudod”]. The Kingdom is committed to its obligations in human rights under the treaties it is party to, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, even further, it considers the treaties part of its domestic law, the aforementioned enjoys her rights and guarantees provided to her according to the law, including right to visit, communication, regular medical treatment, in accordance with regulations of prosecutors’ prisons.

5. In relation to the right to appear before a court, any suspect will be informed when arrested or detained of their reasons for arrest, according to article 56/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that states “prisoners should be treated in a way that preserves their dignity, they should not be abused physically or psychologically, and they should be informed of the reason of their arrest, and they have the right to call an inform who they deem necessary.” If the investigators, after the end of investigation, deems that the investigation is sufficient to press charges, in accordance with Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states “if the investigative and prosecutors (the public prosecutor) after the end of the investigation find that the evidence is sufficient against the subject, they shall submit the case to the relevant court and they ask the suspect to appear before the court . . . .” The case documents will be referred from the prosecutors to the relevant court and the suspect will be asked to present before the court according to Article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states “the investigative and prosecutorial entity (the public prosecutor) according to its own regulation is tasked with filing the criminal case and bring it before the relevant court”, also article 3/b & c of the code of investigation and prosecutors (the public prosecutor), states that the public prosecutor in accordance to regulations and to its own regulations are tasked with

Freedom Now submissions in Page 107 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

handling the investigation and deciding whether to pursue a case or not, and to file the case before the relevant court. After the end of the investigation of the aforementioned, her case was referred to the relevant court, and Loujain Alhathloul has been presented before the court, and she asked to appoint a lawyer to defender her in the case, and her request was accepted, and she was provided the right to access a lawyer and the right to communicate with her family, and she was presented before a court. The regulation has provided the aforementioned the right to hire a lawyer or appoint a lawyer to defender her in accordance with Article 22 of the code of countering terrorism and financing terrorism.

6. The citizen Loujain Alhathloul has been enjoying statutory rights and guarantees according to regulations, including the right to visit, communication, regular medical treatment, in accordance with the code of conduct of the prosecutor’s prison. And she has had several visits during 2018:

Visit on July 25, 2018 Visit on Sept 12, 2018 Visit on Oct 10, 2018, Visit on Nov. 6 2018

And she has also made several calls on:

Call on September 10, 2018 Call on September 16, 2018 Call on October 8, 2018 Call on October 15, 2018 Call on October 21, 2018

And after the medical examination that she was subjected to immediately after she was arrested, we observed that she had a medical history related to her thyroid (hypothyroidism) and she has been receiving the needed medication and she has been scheduled several times to visit special clinics and she has made several visits, including a doctor’s visit September 23, 2018 and a clinic visit on October 19, 2018. On October 14, 2018, the aforementioned received a visit from the representative of the Human Rights Commission and she presented no complaints.

7. In relation to the condition of her detention, precisely related to the accusation of solitary confinement, the citizen Loujain Alhathloul is detained in the prison of general investigation in Riyadh in the general population of the prison and she has the right of visits and calls as mentioned above, also the law allows the investigative entity to prevent the detainee from communicating with other prisoners for a certain set period according to Article 20 of the code of countering terrorism and financing terrorism, which states “without violating the right of informing the family of the suspect in prison, it is up to the prosecutor’s office to order no communication or no visits for a period no longer than 90 days, if that would benefit the investigation, and if the investigation requires a period

Freedom Now submissions in Page 108 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

longer than 90 days, it will be submitted to the relevant court to decide.” Citizen Loujain Alhathloul has been detained in the designated location in accordance with article 2 of the code of criminal procedures which states “one cannot arrest any person, inspect them, or detain them, or imprison them except for the satiations cited in the law, and the detention or imprisonment will be only in the designated facilities and for the period decided in the law” and in accordance with Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states “it is not permissible to detain or arrest any person or imprison them except in designated prisons and detention facilities in accordance with the law and no prison management can admit to the prison any prisoners unless it is combined with an order with a designated time and signed by the relevant authorities, and they cannot keep the person in prison beyond the designated period”, and Article 40 of the same code, states that “anyone who learned or knew about a prisoner or detainee that is held illegally or held in a non- designated prison or detention facility must inform the investigative entity and the prosecutors (the public prosecutor), and a member of the prosecutor’s office, upon their knowledge, should visit the site immediately where the person is being held, they should conduct an investigation, and they should release the prisoner if their imprisonment has been conducted in illegal manners, and the prosecutor must prepare a file and submit it to the relevant authorities to enforce the relevant authority to enforce the regulations against the perpetrators”, also, any person being accused of committing a crime will either be arrested or called for investigation whether it be a male or female, and the end of the investigation of the investigators and the investigators decide that there is sufficient evidence against the suspect, they will press charges and refer the case to the relevant court in accordance with Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedures which state “if the investigative entity and prosecution (the public prosecutor) found that there was sufficient evidence against the suspect at the end of the investigation, they will refer the case to the relevant court and ask the suspect to appear before the court and refer the case . . . ”, and also in accordance with Article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that states “the investigative and prosecutors entity (the public prosecutor) in accordance with its own regulation is tasked with filing the criminal case and pursuing it before the relevant court,” also Article 3/b & c of the Code of Investigative Entities and Prosecutors states that “the Prosecutor General is tasked with, in accordance with its own regulations, (b) decide on the investigation to pursue a case or dismiss it (c) prosecute before the court.” The defendant will be facing trial before public independent and fair court in accordance with Article 46 of the Basic Law, which states “the Judiciary is an independent authority and there is no further authority over judges on their work except the regulations of the Islamic Sharia” and Article 1 of the Judiciary Code of Conduct states “judges are independent, no authority above them over their work except for the Islamic sharia and the due process, and no one can intervene in the work of the judiciary”, and Article 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states “trial sessions are public” and Article 1/181, which states “the sentence will be read publically after it is signed by the judges who ordered it in a public session, even if the case proceeded in secret sessions, in the presence of the parties in the case and in the presence of all judges who worked on the case, unless someone has an excuse for absence” and Article 64 of the Sharia proceedings, which states that the proceedings need to be public and Article 164 of the Sharia proceedings, which states “the sentence needs to be read in a public session or reading the sentence with reasoning, and all judges who participated

Freedom Now submissions in Page 109 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

in the deliberation of the case must be present, however if one of the judges was unable to present, it is permitted for a judge not to present so long as he has signed the sentence” with the guarantee that the defendant will have their own protection in accordance with the law.

8. In relation to the calls to take necessary measures to guarantee her right to be free from torture, inhuman, cruel, degrading treatment, the laws in the Kingdom has set a group of guarantees to ensure that no prisoner is subject to torture and ill treatment. All types of torture, ill treatment, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are criminalized in the Kingdom, including Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated in prohibiting any abuse whether it be physical or psychological to the prisoner and prohibits subjecting the prisoner to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, “it is prohibited to arrest any person, inspect them, detain or imprison them unless in accordance with the law, detention and imprisonment is only allowed in designated detention facilities and for the period ordered by the relevant authorities, it is prohibited to abuse the prisoner physically or psychologically, and also it is prohibited to subject them to torture and degrading treatment.” Article 1/36 of the same code, stated that to treat the prisoners in a way that preserve their dignity, prohibit abusing them physically or psychologically, and to inform them of the reason of their detention and to allow them to inform who they deem necessary to be informed, “prisoners should be treated in a way that preserves their dignity, they should not be abused physically or psychologically, and they have to be informed of the reason of their detention and they have the right to call and inform who they want to inform.” Article 102 of the Code states that the prisoner needs to be interrogated in a condition that does not impact their will in stating their testimony, they cannot be placed under oath and no coercive measures against them, as well as prohibits their interrogation outside of the investigative entity unless deemed necessary by the investigators, “interrogation needs to happen in a condition that does not impact their will to state their testimony, they cannot be placed under oath, and there are no coercive measures against them, and they cannot be interrogated outside of the investigation building unless deemed necessary by the prosecutor.” Members of the prosecution oversee the work of the criminal police in relation to their work of criminal investigation in accordance with Article 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. In relation to what was referenced, that the aforementioned has been detained in retaliation for practicing her guaranteed right to freedom of expression as a part of the wider crackdown against human rights activists, specifically those defending human rights in the Kingdom, we would like to ensure that the laws of the Kingdom guarantees freedom of expression for every person unless it has a violation against the public order, the society, the individuals, or the principles of the country, and those limitations have statutory limitations at the national level, Article 38 of the Basic Law says that “all means of expression must use decent language [be respectful], comply with states’ laws, and contribute to informing the nation and support its unity, and its prohibited any expression that could lead to disorder, division, or that impacts the state security. All of those limitations are in line with the relevant international standards, mainly paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “that imposes limitation on individuals in practicing their rights and freedoms to those limitations that are determined

Freedom Now submissions in Page 110 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society . . .”, no individual will be arrested until after they have been accused of committing a crime in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom. There are no prisoners due to practicing their rights or freedom, all citizens and residents enjoy the practice of their rights and freedoms in accordance with the laws of the kingdom, no category of the people, regardless of their decryptions or names have any favoritism in enjoying their rights or practicing their freedom, and any person who has their rights violated can file a complaint and seek redress in the mechanisms available according to the law. The laws of the Kingdom obligate all state agencies to redress any person regardless of their religion, race, gender, or nationality, and if any of those agencies or their representatives fail to protect any rights, the victim has the right to seek any redress mechanism. The Kingdom’s regulations prohibit any limitation on any persons’ behavior or arresting them or detaining them except in accordance with the law, according to Article 36 of the Basic Law of Governance that stated ensuring safety and security to all citizens and residents in the Kingdom, also the interrogation of any prisoners takes place in the location of the investigative authorities, in accordance with Article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where Article (2) of that code states “it is not allowable to arrest any person, inspect them, detain or imprison them unless the situation cited in the law, and detention or imprisonment cannot happen except in the places designated for such and for the period decided by the relevant authority . . . ” The aforementioned Loujain Alhathloul is not in confinement currently, she enjoys the rights and protections that are granted for her during her detention, including visits, calls, and frequent medical treatment. We emphasize that all citizens and residents in the Kingdom enjoy their rights and practice their freedoms with no discrimination in accordance to the regulations of the Kingdom.

Freedom Now submissions in Page 111 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

A/HRC/WGAD/2020

Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 12 June 2020

Original: English

Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-seventh session, 27 April–1 May 2020

Opinion No. 33/2020 concerning Loujain Alhathloul (United Arab Emirates and 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 42/22. 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 8 November 2019 the Working Group transmitted to the Governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia a communication concerning Loujain Alhathloul. While the Government of the United Arab Emirates has not replied to the communication, the Government of Saudi Arabia replied to the communication on 6 December 2019. Both States are not parties 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). Freedom Now submissions in Page 112 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 Submissions

Communication from the source 4. Loujain Alhathloul , age 28, is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. She is a prominent activist and human rights defender. She has resided in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 5. The source reports that Ms. Alhathloul’s work has focused on promoting women’s rights in Saudi Arabia by advocating against the country’s ban on women driving and restrictive rules around the male guardianship system. She has advanced the cause by raising awareness online, sharing information, coordinating with international human rights monitors, and conducting “driving campaign” whereby she and other advocates began to drive in the streets of Saudi Arabia in defiance of the driving ban. The source notes that international human rights monitors, including the United Nations, have found that women in Saudi Arabia face extensive discrimination in both law and in practice, and that the Government of Saudi Arabia has been willing to take harsh action to protect the status quo, administering harsh penalties against individuals who advocate for gender equality.

a. Arrest, detention and trial proceedings 6. The source submits that Ms. Alhathloul is a prominent Saudi activist and human rights defender, who has never engaged in or advocated violence. Nonetheless, prior to the detention, the authorities of Saudi Arabia have detained her twice in connection with her advocacy activities, once in 2014 for 73 days, and once in 2017 for four days. The authorities never announced any charges against her in either case. 7. The source reports that in March 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was living abroad while studying at the Sorbonne University campus in Abu Dhabi. On 13 March 2018, she was arrested by Abu Dhabi police while driving on the highway. Without showing a warrant or providing information on the grounds for the stop or arrest, officers detained Ms. Alhathloul and immediately transported her to a nearby airfield, where she was placed on a Saudi private jet, staffed by Saudi individuals. The jet transported Ms. Alhathloul to Riyadh, where she was detained by Saudi officials in Ha’er prison for two days without charge. On 15 March 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was released from Ha’er, but a travel-ban was placed on her which prevented her from leaving the country and returning to the United Arab Emirates. 8. According to the source, on 15 May 2018, armed government officers from the Presidency of State Security of Saudi Arabia raided Ms. Alhathloul’s family home in Riyadh, where she was residing during the travel ban. The officers arrested Ms. Alhathloul and transported her to Dhaban Prison in Jeddah. The officers did not show a warrant or provide information of the grounds for her arrest. Moreover, the officers did not inform Ms. Alhathloul’s family where she was being taken or how they could contact her. Over the course of the next several days, the authorities of Saudi Arabia arrested at least 13 activists, many of whom were women who advocated against the Government’s driving ban. 9. While at Dhaban, Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado. She was not permitted to contact her family or any legal representation. On approximately 21 May 2018, State Security officers removed Ms. Alhathloul from Dhaban Prison and transferred her to an unknown hotel in Jeddah. While at the hotel, Ms. Alhathloul was interrogated and tortured by officials, who subjected her to electric shocks, flogging, waterboarding, and threats of rape and sexual assault. During one of the sessions, Ms. Alhathloul was threatened to be sexually assaulted and killed. At the time of submission, the authorities of Saudi Arabia have not prosecuted these individuals. 10. According to the source, on 19 June 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was allowed to contact her family for the first time since her detention on 15 May 2018. During this call, Ms. Alhathloul was not permitted to discuss any aspects of case against her. On 4 July 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was transferred back to Dhaban Prion, where she was held in solitary confinement for over two months, after which she was held alongside other activists arrested in the May 2018 crackdown. On 30 August, Ms. Alhathloul was brought before a judge for the first time. At the hearing, an investigating magistrate affirmed Ms. Alhathloul’s detention and initiated an investigation against her. Subsequently, she was returned to Dhaban Prison, where she was held for the next several months. On 5 December 2018, Ms. Alhahthloul made the first of five complaints alleging torture to the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution. Two were

2 Freedom Now submissions in Page 113 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 submitted by Ms. Alhathloul and three by a family member. The prosecutor’s bureau did not respond to any of the complaints. 11. The source reports that on 14 December 2018, Ms. Alhathloul was transferred to Ha’er Prison in Riyadh. On 13 March 2019, Ms. Alhathloul had her first hearing before a trial court, where she was presented with an indictment with the charges against her. This is the first time that Ms. Alhathloul was provided formal notice of the charges against her. The indictment refers to 12 separate charges, only one of which makes reference to any law or decree. Charges include “Inciting and inviting to change the political system in the Kingdom, and abolish the constitution by cooperating with Khaled Alomair on telegram to initiate a campaign on Twitter to request for a new constitution and designing some brochures for the campaign” (charge 1), “Participating in demanding for women's rights that have been guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women” (charge 2), “receiving financial support from an external organization to visit human rights organizations and to attend conferences and panels to speak about the status of Saudi women” (charge 5), and “participating in a documentary with British journalists to speak about her personal experience in prison” (charge 11). On 3 April 2019, Ms. Alhathloul plead not guilty. Her next hearing, scheduled for 17 April 2019, was cancelled, without notice, and as of the date of submission, has not been rescheduled. As a result, Ms. Alhathloul’s trial has been at a standstill for six months as the court has refused to proceed with her case. Ms. Alhathloul remains in detention in Ha’er Prison in Riyadh. Although she had been detained alongside other activists arrested in the May 2018 crackdown, she is held in isolation, as the other activists detained have since been released. Since the last hearing, officers from the Saudi Security Service have visited both Ms. Alhathloul and her family in an attempt to persuade Ms. Alhathloul to sign documents testifying that she had not been tortured by government officers. At one point, the officers offered to release Ms. Alhathloul on the condition that she sign documents and a record video testifying that she was not tortured. She refused to do so.

b. Analysis of violations 12. The source submits that the Saudi Government’s detention of Ms. Alhathloul constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under categories I, II, III, and V. Moreover, in facilitating Ms. Alhathloul’s return to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates’ detention and removal of Ms. Alhathloul amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under categories I and III.

c. Detention of Ms. Alhathloul by the authorities of Saudi Arabia

i. Category I 13. The source submits that detention is arbitrary under category I when there is no legal basis or justification for it. The Working Group has found lack a legal basis for the purposes of category I when an individual is held incommunicado, when the government uses vague charges to detain or prosecute an individual, when an individual is arrested without substantive evidence, and when a State obtains custody over an individual via the practice of “extraordinary rendition.” In the present case, the authorities of Saudi Arabia have engaged in all four of these forms of category I detention. 14. The source submits that incommunicado detention is prohibited under article 8, 10, and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, Ms. Alhahtloul was held, first in Dhaban Prison, then at an unknown hotel in Jeddah for 35 days without any opportunity to communicate with the outside world, her family, or legal representation. During this period, her family had no knowledge of her whereabouts, and had not means of contacting her, in violation of the prohibition on incommunicado detention. 15. The source recalls that both international law, under article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Saudi law guarantee an individual’s right to know what the law provides. Moreover, when detained, individuals have a right to know the legal grounds for their detention. However, Ms. Alhathloul was not informed of any legal grounds for her detention when she was arrested on 15 May 2018. Moreover, when an indictment was finally released against her almost 10 months after her arrest, the indictment failed to reference any law in 11 out of the 12 charges against her. Additionally, the allegations supporting the indictment primarily concerned activities that Ms. Alhathloul conducted in furtherance of her advocacy and protected under human rights law. Accordingly, the

3 Freedom Now submissions in Page 114 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 authorities of Saudi Arabia failed to provide a sufficient legal justification for her detention and lacked sufficient evidence that she had committed any crime. 16. The source refers to the Working Group’s earlier findings that that engaging in the practice of “extraordinary renditions” amounts to a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutes category I arbitrary detention. In the present case, the authorities of Saudi Arabia coordinated with the United Arab Emirates to achieve the extraordinary rendition of Ms. Alhathloul from the United Arab Emirates to Saudi Arabia. There is no evidence that the authorities of Saudi Arabia provided the United Arab Emirates with any indictment or judgement against Ms. Alhathloul to justify her transfer. This indicates that the transfer occurred without adequate legal process. Moreover, Ms. Alhathloul was not provided an opportunity to challenge her removal in United Arab Emirates, but instead quickly transferred via a private plane to Saudi Arabia. As the ongoing detention of Ms. Alhathloul’s by the authorities of Saudi Arabia directly stemmed from an extraordinary rendition, her detention is arbitrary under category I.

ii. Category II 17. The source submits that Ms. Alhathloul’s detention is arbitrary under category II because it results from the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms protected under international law, including the rights to freedom of expression and association. These rights are protected under articles 19 and 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as articles 24 (6) and 32 (1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR). 18. The source reports that the authorities of Saudi Arabia violated Ms. Alhathloul’s right to freedom of expression and association because they targeted and detained Ms. Alhathloul on the basis of her public advocacy activities, which included her association with other advocates, international human rights bodies, and the United Nations. In addition to arresting Ms. Alhathloul in the context of a widespread crackdown on human rights activists, the Saudi Government also revealed its motivation for arresting Ms. Alhathloul in the indictment brought against her. The indictment charges Ms. Alhathloul with “[p]articipating in demanding for women's rights that have been guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women . . .”, “demanding to abolish male guardianship,” and “[p]articipating in a documentary with British journalists to speak about her personal experience in prison.” Moreover, the indictment presents the following “facts” in support of the charges: Ms. Alhathloul admitted “that she had coordinated with the detainee Eman Alnafjan to inform Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about the recent decision from security agencies to place several human rights activists on travel ban,” and she admitted “that she had contacted around 15-20 foreign journalists to provide them with information about women's issues in the Kingdom.” These activities, as well as many others identified in the indictment, constitute fundamental expressive and associative activity that Ms. Alhathloul conducted in the service of her role as an activist and human rights defender.

iii. Category III 19. The source submits that Ms. Alhathloul’s detention is arbitrary under category III because the Saudi Government denied her right to due process in accordance with international law. 20. The source submits that the authorities of Saudi Arabia violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, principles 2 and 36 (2) of the Body of Principles, and articles 14 (1) and 16 (1) of the ACHR by refusing to notify Ms. Alhathloul of the legal grounds for her arrest when she was seized on 15 May 2018. Moreover, the officers did not show Ms. Alhathloul a warrant for his arrest, and there is no indication that such a warrant exists. 21. The source reports that the authorities of Saudi Arabia violated article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (5) of the ACHR by refusing to bring Ms. Alhathloul promptly before a judicial authority. Ms. Alhathloul was held incommunicado for 35 days and then not brought before a judge until 30 August 2018, over three months after her initial arrest. 22. The source submits that the authorities of Saudi Arabia violated article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2, 5, 16 of the Convention against Torture, Principles 6 and 21 (2) of the Body of Principles, Rules 1 and 43 of the Mandela Rules, and

4 Freedom Now submissions in Page 115 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 Article 8 of the ACHR by having Government agents torture Ms. Alhathloul through electric shocks, flogging, waterboarding, and threats of rape and sexual assault. Moreover, the authorities subsequently failed to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of the torture, despite receiving multiple complaints. 23. According to the source, the authorities of Saudi Arabia also violated principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles and article 14 (5) of the ACHR by failing to release Ms. Alhathloul pending her trial, despite the fact that she has never engaged in violence nor encouraged violence. 24. The source further reports that the authorities of Saudi Arabia violated article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (6) of the ACHR by denying Ms. Alhathloul the right to be tried without undue delay. Ms. Alhathloul’s trial has not moved forward for several months since the court, without prior notice, cancelled a hearing on 17 April 2019.

iv .Category V 25. The source alleges that Ms. Alhathloul’s detention is arbitrary under category V because the authorities of Saudi Arabia deprived Ms. Alhathloul of her liberty based on her political opinion, and the Government’s political discrimination aimed towards ignoring the equality of human beings. Ms. Alhathloul was arrested on the basis of her advocacy for the political opinion that the country should have greater gender equality. Moreover, by targeting individuals, such as Ms. Alhathloul, for promoting gender equality, the authorities were directly engaging in discrimination aimed “towards ignoring the equality of human beings,” which in this case is the equality of men and women.

d. Detention and Extraordinary Rendition of Ms. Alhathloul by the authorities of the United Arab Emirates

i. Category I 26. The source submits that the United Arab Emirates engaged in an extraordinary rendition of Ms. Alhathloul to Saudi Arabia. The United Arab Emirates neither followed international standards of due process nor its own laws regulating the surrender of persons to foreign States. The United Arab Emirates did not provide a warrant or information on the grounds for her arrest; the United Arab Emirates did not provide access to a court; and the United Arab Emirates did not allow Ms. Alhathloul to contact legal counsel, her family, or friends. Because the United Arab Emirates returned Ms. Alhathloul to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Government was able to detain her for two days and place a travel ban on her, preventing her from leaving Saudi Arabia until her arrest on 15 March 2018. Accordingly, the United Arab Emirates’ detention and rendition of Ms. Alhathloul violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and amounted to a category I arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

ii. Category III 27. The source submits that the detention and rendition of Ms. Alhathloul’s by the authorities of the United Arab Emirates is arbitrary under category III because the authorities denied her right to due process in accordance with international law. 28. According to the source, the authorities of the United Arab Emirates violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, principles 2 and 36 (2) of the Body of Principles, and articles 14 (1) and 16 (1) of the ACHR by refusing to notify Ms. Alhathloul of the legal grounds for his arrest when she was seized on 13 March 2018. Moreover, the officers did not show Ms. Alhathloul a warrant for her arrest, and there is no indication that such a warrant exists. 29. The source further reports that the authorities of the authorities of the United Arab Emirates violated article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (6) of the ACHR by denying Ms. Alhathloul the right to have her removal from the United Arab Emirates reviewed by a court. The authorities of the United Arab Emirates arrested Ms. Alhathloul and transported her directly to an airport to have her removed. This absence of judicial review constituted a clear violation of the right to judicial review.

5 Freedom Now submissions in Page 116 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 30. The source submits that the authorities of the United Arab Emirates also violated article 16 (3) of the ACHR, which guarantees individuals the right to legal representation when facing criminal charges. Ms. Alhathloul was not permitted to contact legal representation, family or friends before being removed from the United Arab Emirates.

Response from the Governments 31. On 8 November 2019, the Working Group transmitted the allegations made by the source to the Governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates through its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested the Governments to provide by 7 January 2020, detailed information about the situation of Ms. Alhathloul and any comments on the source’s allegations. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Governments to ensure Ms. Alhathloul’s physical and mental integrity. 32. The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government of the United Arab Emirates, nor did it request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as provided for in the Working Group’s methods of work. 33. In its response of 6 December 2019, the Government of Saudi Arabia stated that Ms. Alhathloul has been detained for crimes punishable under the law, not for her peaceful defence of women’s rights. The Government states that Ms. Alhathloul was arrested and detained in a General Directorate of Investigation (Al Mabahith) prison in Riyadh pursuant to a warrant issued against her from the relevant authorities according to article 2 of the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing. She stands accused of crimes under the said Penal Law as well as the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, which stipulates in article 6 (1) that “production, preparation, transmission, or storage of material impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy, through the information network or computers” is punishable by up to five years in prison and 3 million riyals. Her case is still under investigation and the proceedings against her are in line with the Government’s obligations under international human rights law. 34. According to the Government, the Prosecutor General investigated her allegation of torture and sexual harassment but found no evidence to support her claim. The Saudi laws ensure that no one is subjected to torture or ill-treatment in the criminal procedures. In addition, article 5 (6) and (7) of the Saudi Human Rights Commission Regulation empowers the Commission to “visit prisons and detention centers at any time without permission from the competent authority, and bring reports on them before the President of the Council of Ministers” and to “receive and verify complaints related to human rights and take the legal measures pertaining to them”. The National Human Rights Organization, a civil society organization, also conducts visits to prisons and detention facilities to receive complaints. The King’s Council and the Crown Prince’s Council operating under article 43 of the Basic Law are also open to all complaints. 35. The Government reiterates that it is committed to its human rights obligations under the treaties to which it is a party, including the Convention against Torture, and adds that it considers these treaties to be a part of its domestic law. 36. With respect to the right to a fair trial, every suspect is informed of reasons for arrest at the time of arrest or detention. Ms. Alhathloul was presented before the court after the end of her investigation and referral of her case to it. Her request to appoint a lawyer has been accepted, and she has enjoyed the right to access legal counsel and to communicate with her family. 37. In the Government’s version of events, Ms. Alhathloul has enjoyed her statutory right to visit, communication and regular medical treatment, and she has had visits on 25 July, 12 September, 10 October and 6 November 2018, has made phone calls on 10 September, 16 September, 8 October, 15 October and 21 October 2018, and has made a visit to a doctor on 23 September 2018 and to a clinic on 19 October 2018. She received a visit from a representative of the Human Rights Commission on 14 October 2018 during which she presented no complaints. 38. Concerning the accusation of solitary confinement, the Government submits that Ms. Alhathloul has been detained in a General Directorate of Investigation (Al Mabahith) prison in Riyadh in the general prison population and that she is not currently under solitary confinement. She has had the rights of visits and phone calls while the Penal Law for Crimes

6 Freedom Now submissions in Page 117 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 of Terrorism and its Financing allows the prosecutor to ban communication or visits for up to 90 days for the benefit of the investigation and, if the investigation requires a longer period, a request may be submitted to the court for extension. 39. The Government has objected to the allegation that Ms. Alhathloul has been detained in retaliation for exercising her right to freedom of expression as a human rights defender. It claims that the limitations to the right to freedom of opinion contained in article 39 of the Basic Law (“Mass media and all other vehicles of expression shall employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation and strengthen unity. It is prohibited to commit acts leading to disorder and division, affecting the security of the state and its public relations, or undermining human dignity and rights.”) is in line with the relevant international standards such as article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”). 40. The Government lastly emphasizes that all citizens and residents enjoy their the rights and freedoms without discrimination in accordance with the Saudi law, that no person may be arrested, detained, investigated or imprisoned unless in accordance with the law, and that no detention or imprisonment may take place except in the places designated as such and for a period determined by the relevant authorities.

Further comments from the source 41. In its reply, the source countered that the Government of Saudi Arabia has failed to provide any evidence to back its arguments other than stressing compliance with the domestic criminal laws and procedures. In fact, much of it corroborates the claims made by the source in the latter’s initial submissions. 42. The source submits that the Government has failed to address and has thus tacitly accepted the allegation that the latter has engaged in Ms. Alhathloul’s extraordinary rendition, in collaboration with its counterpart in the United Arab Emirates, whereby she was involuntarily taken from Abu Dhabi without a formal request for her surrender or extradition, without any formal judicial process or sanction, and without an opportunity in a court of law to challenge the legality of her capture and transfer. 43. According to the source, the Government’s account did not contradict the source’s allegation that Ms. Alhathloul has been held incommunicado for 35 days from 15 May to 19 June 2018 without being brought before a judge until 30 August 2018 or having access to her family, legal counsel and judicial review of her detention, as it is acknowledged that, since her arrest on 15 May 2018, the earliest visit and phone call were on 25 July 2018 and 10 September 2018 respectively while the Government is silent about when she was first brought before a judge. In addition, the Government admits to the prosecutor’s power to in effect hold a suspect incommunicado for up to 90 days under the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing without clarifying whether this power has been exercised in Ms. Alhathloul’s case. 44. The source further adds that the Government has failed to present any justification, such as the risk of flight, destruction of evidence or public security, for Ms. Alhathloul’s pre- trial detention through denial of release on bail. The Government has also failed to contest the violation of Ms. Alhathloul’s right to be tried without undue delay as she had been held for 10 months before the beginning of her trial and the Government has stalled the proceedings since 17 April 2019 when the last hearing took place. In the source’s view, such denial of due process obliges the Working Group to find Ms. Alhathloul’s detention arbitrary under category III. 45. Regarding the substantive legal basis for her detention, the source points to the vagueness of the only criminal provision specifically referred to by the Government for which Ms. Alhathloul has been charged and indicted, namely article 6 (1) of the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing outlawing “production, preparation, transmission, or storage of material impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy, through the information network or computers”. Such vaguely worded provision is not in line with the clear legal basis required as per opinions No. 60/2013 (United Arab Emirates), para. 22 and No. 44/2014 (Republic of the Congo), paras. 26-37. Nor has the Government produced

7 Freedom Now submissions in Page 118 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 any investigation reports or court documents to establish sufficient legal basis for Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest, detention and indictment. The Working Group therefore should find her detention arbitrary under category I. 46. The source submits that the Government’s denial of the characterization of Ms. Alhathloul’s detention as retaliation for exercising her right to freedom of expression, on the grounds that she was arrested for legitimate crimes under Saudi law and that it restricts the freedom of expression only within the exceptions provided for in international law, is without merit. She has been charged with participation in demanding women’s rights guaranteed by Sharia law to Muslim women by the prosecutor. The requirement of expressive activities to “employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation and strengthen unity” and prohibition of those “leading to disorder and division, affecting the security of the state and its public relations” under the Basic Law go far beyond the legitimate restrictions permitted under international law, namely national security, public safety and public order, public health, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Government has also failed to explain how her actions fall within the grounds for restrictions under international law. 47. In a similar vein, the source adds that the charges against Ms. Alhathloul in her indictment stem specifically from her association with journalists, human rights defenders and international human rights monitors. The Government is silent about the allegation of violating her right to freedom of association. For depriving Ms. Alhathloul of her liberty for exercise of her right to freedom of expression and association, the source maintains that her detention is arbitrary under category II. 48. With respect to the allegation of torture and sexual harassment, the source notes that the Government has failed to mention the specific steps taken by the Prosecutor General to investigate the matter, to provide any evidence that the Prosecutor General conducted any investigation or to suggest that the investigation was thorough. 49. Concerning the allegation of Ms. Alhathloul’s solitary confinement, the Government merely states that she is “currently” not subject to such confinement, leaving open the possibility that she had been so confined in the past. As pointed out above, the Government has also admitted that the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing empowers the authorities to hold an individual in solitary confinement for up to 90 days or, with judicial permission, a longer period of time.

Discussion 50. The present case involves two States and the Working Group will discuss the issues related to each State separately. In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Alhathloul 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 for breach of international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Governments to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Governments that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations (see A/HRC/19/57, para. 68).

a. Allegations against the United Arab Emirates 51. In the absence of a response from the Government of the United Arab Emirates, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.

i. Category I 52. With respect to Ms. Alhathloul’s arrest and detention in and by the United Arab Emirates prior to her forced transfer to Saudi Arabia on 13 March 2018, the source submits, and the Government does not contest, that Ms. Alhathloul was not presented with an arrest warrant or informed of the reasons for her arrest by the Abu Dhabi police at the time of arrest on 13 March 2018.

¡ ¢ In order for a deprivation of liberty in and by the United Arab Emirates to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must

8 Freedom Now submissions in Page 119 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant, which was not implemented in the present case. 1 54. International law includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant 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 and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation 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. 2 55. The Working Group also finds that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the authorities of the United Arab Emirates should have informed Ms. Alhathloul of the reasons for her arrest, at the time of arrest, and of the charges against her promptly. 3 Their failure to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principle 10 of the Body of Principles, and renders her arrest devoid of any legal basis. 4 56. The Working Group further observes that Ms. Alhathloul was not afforded the right to take proceedings before a court in or by the United Arab Emirates so that it may decide without delay on the lawfulness of her detention in accordance with articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration and principles 11, 32 and 37 of the Body of Principles.5 In addition, the Working Group notes that judicial oversight of the deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. 6 57. The Working Group finds that Ms. Alhathloul’s forced transfer from the United Arab Emirates to Saudi Arabia under coordination by both Governments circumvented the regular extradition procedure and resulted in her deprivation of liberty without legal basis in violation of articles 3, 9 and 13 (1) and (2) of the Universal Declaration. 58. In the Working Group’s view, Ms. Alhathloul’s transfer resulted in her enforced disappearance, which entails a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person. The Working Group recalls that no jurisdiction should allow for individuals to be deprived of their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods, held outside the reach of the law, without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas corpus. (A/HRC/16/47, para. 54). 59. For these reasons, the Working Group considers that there was no legal basis for the arrest, detention and forced transfer of Ms. Alhathloul. The Working Group concludes that her deprivation of liberty lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I.

ii. Category II 60. The Working Group notes that Ms. Alhathloul has been an activist for women’s human rights, leading the “driving campaign” with her fellow advocates in defiance of Saudi Arabia’s driving ban. In the Working Group’s view, the Government of the United Arab Emirates seized and transferred Ms. Alhathloul because of her exercise of her rights to freedom of expression, association, and to participate in participate in public affairs, which prompted the Government of Saudi Arabia to request her forced transfer. The Government of the United Arab Emirates cannot escape responsibility for its part in facilitating Ms. Alhathloul’s persecution for her legitimate exercise of rights and freedoms.

1 See, for example, opinions No. 10/2018, par. 45-46; No. 36/2018, paras. 40; No. 46/2018, par. 48; No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2019, para. 51. 2 The Working Group has maintained that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. See, for example, opinions No. 3/2018, para. 43; No. 10/2018, para. 46; No. 26/2018, para. 54; No. 30/2018, para. 39; No. 38/2018, para. 63; No. 47/2018, para. 56; No. 51/2018, para. 80; No. 63/2018, para. 27; No. 68/2018, para. 39; and No. 82/2018, para. 29. See also article 14 (1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 3 See, for example, opinion No. 10/2015, para. 34. See also opinions No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2019, para. 51. 4 See also article 14 (1) and (3) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 5 See also articles 12, 14 (1), (5) and (6), and 23 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. See also A/HRC/30/37, paras, 2-3 and para. 47 (a). 6 See opinions No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 32/2019, para. 30;No. 33/2019, para. 50; No. 44/2019, para. 54; No. 45/2019, para. 53; No. 59/2019, para. 51; and No. 65/2019, para. 64.

9 Freedom Now submissions in Page 120 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 61. The Working Group therefore concludes that Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, falling within category II, as it violates articles 19, 20 (1) and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see also paras. 80 – 83 below).

iii. Category III 62. The Working Group notes that Ms. Alhathloul had been seized and transferred to Saudi Arabia by the authorities without the benefit of a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Involuntary expulsion to a foreign state without a hearing by judicial authorities cannot conform with the due process of the law. 63. As the Working Group has previously observed, 12 international law regarding extradition provides procedures that must be observed by countries in arresting, detaining and returning individuals to face criminal proceedings in another country and in ensuring that their right to a fair trial is protected. Those procedures have not been observed in the present case, and the Working Group considers that the arrest, detention and forced transfer of Ms. Alhathloul did not meet any minimum international standards of due process. It is further disturbing that Ms. Alhathloul never had any access to legal counsel as she was removed to Saudi Arabia in a matter of hours. 64. As the Working Group has stated, individuals should not be expelled to another country when there are substantial grounds for believing that their life or freedom would be at risk, or they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment (see A/HRC/4/40, paras. 44–45). In addition, the Working Group considers that the risk of arbitrary detention in the receiving State must also be among the elements taken into consideration before individuals are expelled. The Working Group notes that the Government of the United Arab Emirates did not avail itself of the option of resorting to the regular extradition procedure or obtaining credible assurances from Saudi Arabia regarding due process and fair trial guarantees or prevention of torture and enforced disappearance. The Working Group considers that Ms. Alhathloul’s forced transfer to Saudi Arabia by the United Arab Emirates violated the principle of non-refoulement as well as the United Arab Emirates’ obligations under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 65. Given the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III.

iv. Category V 66. The Working Group finds that the Government of the United Arab Emirates has, at the request of the Government of Saudi Arabia, arrested, detained and forcibly transferred Ms. Alhathloul on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination, and that the case falls within category V (see paras. 94 – 97 below).

b. Concluding remarks 67. Thus, the Working Group considers that the Government of the United Arab Emirates is responsible for its own actions in the arrest, detention and forced transfer of Ms. Alhathloul, as well as the subsequent violations of her rights in Saudi Arabia (see paras. 70-98 below). 68. The Working Group notes that the present opinion is only one of several opinions in which the Working Group has found the Government in violation of its international human rights obligations. 7 The Working Group is concerned that this indicates a systemic problem with arbitrary detention in the United Arab Emirates, which amounts to a serious violation of international law. 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. 8

7 See opinions No. 34/2011, No. 64/2011, No. 61/2012, No. 27/2013, No. 42/2013, No. 60/2013, No. 12/2014, No. 51/2015, No. 56/2014, No. 17/2016, No. 21/2017, No. 28/2017, No. 47/2017, No. 58/2017, No. 76/2017, No. 30/2018, No. 28/2019 and No. 55/2019. 8 See A/HRC/13/42, para. 30. See also, for example, opinions No. 68/2018, para. 60; No. 73/2018, para. 69; No. 82/2018, para. 53; No. 83/2018, para. 68; No. 87/2018, para. 80.

10 Freedom Now submissions in Page 121 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 c. Allegations against Saudi Arabia 69. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government of Saudi Arabia for their submissions in relation to Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty.

i. Category I 70. With respect to Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty in and by Saudi Arabia following her forced transfer from the United Arab Emirates on 13 March 2018, the source submits, and the Government failed to substantiate its claim to the contrary, that Ms. Alhathloul was not presented with an arrest warrant or informed of the reasons for her arrest at the time of arrest on 13 March 2018 immediately after her forced transfer and on 15 May 2018 at her family home in Riyadh by the General Directorate of Investigation (Al Mabahith). 71. As noted above, in order for a deprivation of liberty in and by Saudi Arabia 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 through an arrest warrant, which was not implemented in the present case. 9 72. The Working Group also finds that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the Saudi authorities of should have informed Ms. Alhathloul of the reasons for her arrest, at the time of arrest, and of the charges against her promptly. 10 Their failure to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principle 10 of the Body of Principles, and renders her arrest devoid of any legal basis. 11 73. The source further maintains, and the Government of Saudi Arabia again does not dispute, that Ms. Alhathloul has been subjected to incommunicado detention from 15 May to 19 June 2018 and to enforced disappearance at an unknown hotel in Jeddah from 21 May to 4 July 2018. Enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 12 74. The Working Group and other experts stated in the Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, that no jurisdiction should allow for individuals to be deprived of their liberty in secret for potentially indefinite periods, held outside the reach of the law, without the possibility of resorting to legal procedures, including habeas corpus .13 In accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 37/3, the Working Group stresses that no one shall be held in secret detention, and urges the Government of Saudi Arabia to close down promptly all secret detention facilities.14 . 75. The Working Group observes that thereupon Ms. Alhathloul was not brought promptly before a judge, within 48 hours of the arrest barring absolutely exceptional circumstances, as per the international standard set out in the Working Group’s jurisprudence. 15 In fact, she was first brought before a judge on 30 August 2018, three and a half months after her arrest on 15 May 2018. It is of considerable concern to the Working Group that the 2017 Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing allows the public prosecution to hold a suspect in pretrial detention for up to 12 months, with unlimited extension upon court order (article 19) and allows suspects to be held for up to 90 days in incommunicado detention (article 20). The Working Group considers that the prosecuting

9 See, for example, opinions No. 93/2017, para. 44; No. 10/2018, par. 45-46; No. 36/2018, paras. 40; No. 46/2018, par. 48; No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2019, para. 51. 10 See, for example, opinion No. 10/2015, para. 34. See also opinions No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2019, para. 51. 11 See also article 14 (1) and (3) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 12

See opinion £ No. 82/2018, para. 28; No. 18/2019, para. 33; No. 22/2019, para. 67; No. 26/2019, para. 88; No. 28/2019, para. 61; No. 29/2019, para. 54; No. 36/2019, para. 35; No. 41/2019, para. 32; No. 42/2019, para. 48; No. 51/2019, para. 58 and No. 56/2019, para. 79. See also article 22 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 13 See A/HRC/16/47, para. 54. 14 A/HRC/RES/37/3, paras. 8, 9 and 16. 15 See opinions No. 57/2016, paras. 110–111; No. 2/2018, para. 49; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 11/2019, para. 63; No. 20/2019, para. 66; No. 26/2019, para. 89; No. 30/2019, para. 30; No. 36/2019, para. 36; No. 42/2019, para. 49; No. 51/2019, para. 59; No. 56/2019, para. 80; No. 76/2019, para. 38; and No. 82/2019, para. 76.

11 Freedom Now submissions in Page 122 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 authorities cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purpose of oversight of pre-trial detention. 76. Furthermore, her pre-trial detention, which should be the exception rather than the rule, lacked a legal basis as it was not based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes specified in law as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime, accompanied by consideration of alternatives, such as bail, electronic bracelets or other conditions, rendering detention unnecessary in the particular case. 16 Her detention has lasted for almost two years since her arrest on 15 May 2018 and her trial is ongoing. Therefore, the Government of Saudi Arabia has violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration as well as principles 11, 37 and 38 of the Body of Principles. 17 77. The Working Group further observes that Ms. Alhathloul was not afforded the right to take proceedings before a court in or by Saudi Arabia so that it may decide without delay on the lawfulness of her detention in accordance with articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration and principles 11, 32 and 37 of the Body of Principles. 18 Judicial oversight of the deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. 19 78. The Working Group also recalls that it has previously found that vaguely and broadly worded provisions, such as article 6(1) of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law invoked in the case at hand, which cannot qualify as lex certa , violate the due process of law underpinned by the principle of legality in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. .20 79. For these reasons, the Working Group considers that Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I.

ii. Category II 80. The source alleges, and the Government of Saudi Arabia does not refute, that Ms. Alhathloul has been promoting women’s rights in Saudi Arabia by leading a public campaign against the ban on women driving and restrictive male guardianship system. She has never engaged in or incited violence, but the Saudi authorities have detained her twice for 73 days in 2014 and for 4 days in 2017 without stating any charges against her. Following her arrest on 15 May 2018, the Government arrested at least 13 other activists, mostly those who had advocated against the ban on women driving. She has been held alongside her fellow activists at Dhaban Prison. The criminal charges for which she is been indicted and tried clearly concern her internationally renowned public campaign. 81. The Working Group finds that the arrest and detention of Ms. Alhathloul in these circumstances violated her rights to freedom of expression, association, and to participate in public affairs. Although freedom of opinion and expression is not without limitation, article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the only legitimate limitations to the exercise of one’s rights and freedoms must be for the purposes of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 82. Furthermore, given the Government’s failure to produce any credible evidence, other than vague charges, to reasonably implicate Ms. Alhathloul in specific violent or criminal acts that pose threats to the rights and freedoms of others, morality, public order and the general welfare, the Working Group finds no legitimate aim or objective in a free and democratic society to justify her deprivation of liberty. Her detention therefore was neither necessary nor proportionate.

16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 38. See also A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48-58. 17 See also article 14 (1) and (5) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 18 See also articles 12, 14 (1), (5) and (6), and 23 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 19 See opinions No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 32/2019, para. 30;No. 33/2019, para. 50; No. 44/2019, para. 54; No. 45/2019, para. 53; No. 59/2019, para. 51; and No. 65/2019, para. 64. 20 See opinion No. 71/2019, paras. 73-75.

12 Freedom Now submissions in Page 123 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 83. The Working Group therefore concludes that Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, falling within category II, as it violates articles 19, 20 (1) and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 21

iii. Category III 84. Given its finding that Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that in such circumstances no trial should take place. 85. The Working Group notes that Ms. Alhathloul was deprived of access to legal counsel of her choice by Saudi Arabia during her period of incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance. 86. In the Working Group’s view, the Government of Saudi Arabia failed to respect her right to legal assistance at all times, which is inherent in the right to liberty and security of person as well as the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group considers that this violation substantially undermined and compromised her capacity to defend herself in any subsequent judicial proceedings. 22 The Working Group therefore finds a serious violation of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as principles 15, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles. 23 87. The Working Group further notes the denial of Ms. Alhathloul’s due process right to be visited by and to correspond with her family and to be given adequate opportunity with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations, in accordance with principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles and rules 43 (3) and 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). 24 88. In the Working Group’s view, Ms. Alhathloul’s pretrial detention for almost 2 years in Saudi prison without individualized judicial determination has undermined the presumption of innocence guaranteed under articles 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration as well as principle 36 (1) of the Body of Principles.25 89. Furthermore, there can be no justification for prolonged trial, during which time she remains deprived of liberty, a manifest violation of the right to be tried without undue delay, guaranteed under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration. 26 90. The Working Group also expresses its grave concern at the prima facie allegation of torture during Ms. Alhathloul’s pre-trial detention, including two month solitary confinement, electrocution, flogging, waterboarding and sexual harassment and threats of rape, sexual assault and death during her interrogation at an unknown hotel in Jeddah. The Government has not specified when the regular medical treatment occurred. 91. With respect to Ms. Alhathloul’s two month solitary confinement the Working Group recalls that the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has deemed that or prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 days, whereby some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible (A/63/175, para. 56 and A/66/268, para. 61)27 or incommunicado detention in a secret place may amount to torture as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture (A/56/156, para. 14). Furthermore, the Government of Saudi Arabia has failed to adequately respond to all five complaints concerning the allegations of torture submitted to it by Ms. Alhathloul and her family.

21 See also articles 24 (1), (2), (5) and (6), 30 (1) and 32 (1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 22 See A/HRC/30/37, paras, 12, 15, 67 and 71. 23 See also articles 12, 13 (1) and 16 (2) and (3) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 24 See opinions No. No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74-75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76. 25 See also article 16 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 26 See also article 13 (1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 27 Rule 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) likewise refers to solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days as prolonged solitary confinement.

13 Freedom Now submissions in Page 124 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 92. Accordingly, the Working Group finds that the source has presented a credible allegations that the absolute prohibition of torture enshrined in articles 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and 16 (1) of the Convention against Torture, has been violated in Ms. Alhathloul’s case. The failure by Saudi Arabia to take remedial measures also violates articles 12, 13 and 14 (1) of the Convention against Torture 28 and principle 33 of the Body of Principles. 93. Given the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.

iv Category V 94. The Working Group will now examine whether Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty constitutes discrimination under international law for the purpose of category V. 95. The Working Group notes that Ms. Alhathloul is a prominent activist for gender equality and human rights defender, famous for her “driving campaign” that challenged the decades-old ban on women driving cars. She had already been detained twice for her advocacy, first in 2014 for 73 days and second in 2017 for four days, even though the authorities failed to bring any charges against her. Following her arrest on 15 May 2018, the Government arrested at least 13 other activists, mostly those who had advocated against the ban on women driving, and they have been held alongside each other at Dhaban Prison. The Working Group considers that Ms. Alhathloul has been targeted along with her fellow activists for their tireless campaign for women’s rights and gender equality. 96. The Working Group cannot help but notice that Ms. Alhathloul’s political views and convictions are clearly at the centre of the present case and that the authorities have displayed an attitude towards her that can only be characterized as discriminatory. Indeed, her human rights advocacy appears to be the sole reason for her forced transfer and detention. 97. For these reasons, the Working Group considers that Ms. Alhathloul’s deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the grounds of discrimination based on political views, gender and her status as a human rights defender. Her deprivation of liberty therefore falls under category V. 29

d. Concluding remarks 98. The Working Group considers that the Government of Saudi Arabia is responsible for its action in the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Alhathloul in Saudi Arabia, as well as jointly responsible with the Government of the UAE for the arrest, detention and forcible transfer of Ms. Alhathloul from the United Arab Emirates (see paras. 52-67 above). 99. In its 29-year history, the Working Group has found Saudi Arabia in violation of their international human rights obligations in at least 60 cases. 30 The Working Group is concerned that this indicates a systemic problem with arbitrary detention in Saudi Arabia, which amounts to a serious violation of international law. 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.31

Disposition 100. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty by the Government of the United Arab Emirates of Loujain Alhathloul, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (1), 13 (1) and (2),

28 See also article 8 (2) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 29 See also articles 3 (2) and (3) and 11 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 30 See, for example, opinions No. 14/2014, No. 32/2014, No. 13/2015, No. 38/2015, No. 52/2016, No. 61/2016, No. 10/2017, No. 63/2017, No. 93/2017, No. 10/2018, No. 68/2018, No. 22/2019, No. 26/2019, No. 56/2019 and No. 71/2019. 31 See A/HRC/13/42, para. 30. See also, for example, opinions No. 68/2018, para. 60; No. 73/2018, para. 69; No. 82/2018, para. 53; No. 83/2018, para. 68; No. 87/2018, para. 80.

14 Freedom Now submissions in Page 125 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 19, 20 (1), and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (1) is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II,III, and V. The deprivation of liberty by the Government of Saudi Arabia of Loujain Alhathloul, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (1) and (2), 13 (1) and (2), 19, 20 (1), and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (1) is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V. 101. The Working Group requests the Governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Alhathloul without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group encourages both Governments to accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 102. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be for the Government of Saudi Arabia to release Ms. Alhathloul immediately and for both Governments to accord her an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. In the current context of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government of Saudi Arabia to take urgent action to ensure his immediate release. 103. The Working Group urges both Governments to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Ms. Alhathloul and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of her rights. 104. The Working Group requests the Government of Saudi Arabia to bring its laws, in particular article 6 (1) of the Anti-Cybercrime Law, into conformity with the recommendations made in the present opinion and with the commitments made by Saudi Arabia under international human rights law. 105. In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers the present case to: (i) the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (ii) the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; (iii) the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; (iv) the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; (v) the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; (vi) the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; (vii) the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and (viii) the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, for appropriate action. 106. The Working Group requests both Governments to translate, publish and disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure 107. In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests the source and the Governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including: (a) Whether Ms. Alhathloul has been released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Alhathloul; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Ms. Alhathloul’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 the United Arab Emirates and 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. 108. The Governments are invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and

15 Freedom Now submissions in Page 126 of 174 relation to Loujain al-Hathloul

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION A/HRC/WGAD/2020 whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working Group. 109. The Working Group requests the source and the Governments 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. 110. 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. 32 [Adopted on 1 May 2020 ]

32 See Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.

16 Democracy for the Arab World Now Page 127 of 174 (DAWN)

November 13, 2020

Tayab Ali Legal Secretariat to the Fact Finding Committee

Dear Fact Finding Committee,

We are pleased to assist you in your mission by providing information about the following matters:

1. the arrest, detention and treatment of individuals in Saudi Arabia; 2. prison conditions in Saudi Arabia.

Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) is a nonprofit organization that promotes democracy, the rule of law, and human rights for all of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). As part of our work, we research, document and publish information about human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, including the arrest, detention and prosecution of human rights activists, political dissidents, royals and businesspeople. We also document their treatment in prison.

Since the anointing of King Salman in Saudi Arabia in 2015 by a small royal cabal, the country has seen a dramatic and unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of his son, Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman or MBS. MBS has exercised this power to conduct wide scale arrests against those perceived to have independent power centers in the country, including the country’s intellectual and independent religious leadership, the business and media establishment, royal rivals, and civil society reformists. He has kidnapped and in some cases killed activists and royal family members abroad. He has also held hostage foreign government leaders, including Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and nominal Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, and jailed the family members of political exiles.

Saudi Arabia’s laws prohibit freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion; non-Muslim places of worship are prohibited. There are no independent civil society organizations in the country. The country is ruled as an absolute monarchy with no constitution or legal protections for the rights of citizens. Reforms in 2018 and 2019 allowed women the right to drive and ended certain aspects of the “male guardianship” system, but those who have long campaigned for these changes languish in prison and have faced sexual harassment, torture, electrocution and imprisonment by the government. Further, women still need to obtain a male guardian’s permission to marry or even to have an medical operation in hospital, and husbands Democracy for the Arab World Now Page 128 of 174 (DAWN)

can continue to bar their wives from working under religious laws requiring a wife’s “obedience”. Women also face discrimination in divorce and inheritance.

In the last five years, the Saudi authorities have engaged in an unprecedented crackdown on free speech and dissent, targeting activists and critics through intimidation, harassment, arrest, detention, torture and extrajudicial killing. Those targeted include journalists, women’s rights activists, and independent clerics engaging in peaceful speech and activity, which are protected by international human rights law.

Saudi Arabia has no comprehensive penal code but rather prosecutes people based on general principles that are not codified. The authorities claim that these principles are based on Islamic law and jurisprudence, and they convict individuals based on vague charges like “disturbing the peace,” “swaying public opinion,” and “inciting against the state.” In addition, the authorities have enacted specific penal provisions, such as the Counter-terrorism Law and the Anti-Cyber Crimes Law. Both laws enable abuse of power and allow the government to prosecute peaceful activists and political detainees, in part because they include vague and overbroad definitions of “crimes” and criminalize peaceful speech and activity that are protected by international human rights law. For example, Articles 6 and 13 of the Anti-Cybercrime Law prohibit preparing, producing, or publishing any material that threatens the “public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy.” Article 1(a) of the Counter-Terrorism Law defines the crime of terrorism to include acts that “disturb public order” and “endanger national unity.”

The Counter-Terrorism Law explicitly denies detainees and defendants the protections of Saudi Arabia’s Law of Criminal Procedure of 2013, which otherwise limits pretrial detention to six months. Article 5 of the Counter-Terrorism law allows for indefinite pretrial detention at the discretion of the prosecutor. Therefore, there is a wide range of cases in which defendants can languish in prison for years, such as the cases of Salman Alodah, who has been jailed for three years pending the outcome of his trial, and Loujain Alhathloul, whose ongoing trial has been on hold, without holding court sessions, for more than 19 months, even as she remains in jail.

Since July 2017, the Saudi government has escalated its crackdown on dissenters by targeting their family members inside and outside Saudi Arabia, like in the cases of Aljabri and Omar Abdulaziz. The Saudi authorities also banned 19 family members of the political detainee Salman Alodah from traveling abroad without any due process. They have taken similar measures against royals they have targeted. A few months after the arrest of Prince Salman bin Abduaziz in late 2017, the Saudi authorities arrested his father, Prince Abdulaziz bin Muhammed. Democracy for the Arab World Now Page 129 of 174 (DAWN)

The general conditions in Saudi prisons are poor. Rights groups have documented many cases in which the Saudi authorities denied basic medical treatment , held people incommunicado, and even physically tortured them including sexual harassment and abuse. The Saudi authorities have also tortured and abused members of the royal family, and they reportedly tortured to death at least one general, Maj. General Ali al-Qahtani, in late 2017.

In this system of systematic abuse and lack of due process, there is little or no accountability. For example, the Saudi governmental Human Rights Commission refuses to investigate complaints of torture and sexual harassment in prison and continue to issue reports and statements praising the Saudi human rights records. This governmental institution, which is supposed to investigate abuses and hold wrongdoers responsible, instead provides cover for the Saudi government to continue its abusive behavior against citizens.

We welcome a chance to provide additional information about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Abdullah Alaoudh

Director of Research for the Gulf at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)

Grant Liberty report- December Page 130 of 174 2020

GRANT LIBERTY Saudi Prisoners of Conscience Report 2020/21

WAR ON FREEDOM Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 131 of 174

Table of Contents Table of Contents

04 About Grant Liberty 36 Human Rights Violations

06 Foreword 48 Categories Of Prisoner

08 In Brief 72 Activism

09 Highlights and Stats 74 G20 and Beyond

10 Executive Summary 76 Conclusion

24 Family Testimonies

28 MBS ERA

32 Prisoners of Conscience in the MBS Era Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 132 of 174

GRANT LIBERTY Grant Liberty is a London-based non-profit organisation which aims to stand and fight for human rights worldwide. Grant Liberty is the official advocacy wing of Forgotten Women, a global voice for those who have been silenced. There are individuals, groups and communities worldwide We aim to provide liberty for all regardless of race, colour and belief, whose basic human rights have been denied, who suffer OUR VALUES to hold to account those who have forced injustice on the innocent. We do this by lobbying, raising awareness, engaging in global in silence, whether because of extreme torture, abuse Grant Liberty is an official global voice coverage, petitioning and involving national and international for those who have been silenced, or deprived of their freedom. For this reason the birth of oppressed and imprisoned. Our core courts to fight against global oppression. values are based on fundamental Grant Liberty was inevitable. beliefs as follows: We expect individuals, groups, communities and governments to uphold these values in every corner of the globe. Wherever there is an infringement of these values, we shall aim to address them. Saladin Ali, CEO - Grant Liberty Justice Grant Liberty is funded by private donors from the UK, US and EU. It Freedom does not receive funding from any government.

Equality Founded:

Dignity 2016

Security Headquarters:

Accountability London, United Kingdom

Forgotten Women

Forgotten Women is a charity run by women for women, a charity dedicated to helping women in crisis and emergencies. The charity was set up after witnessing first-hand the ‘sex for aid’ and Advocacy is an integral manipulation of women in vulnerable situations. part of our overall We envision a world where every woman is given the opportunity to mission, you cannot be an live a life free from humiliation, poverty and abuse. A world in which humanitarian and ignore women are free to preserve their dignity, health, well-being and the global struggle for economic independence. basic rights

Miss Sundeep Bahia. Founder

4 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 5 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 133 of 174

demand for democracy across the Middle East and freedom and constitutional recourse to choose North Africa. The changes in Tunisia and Egypt led their government through free and fair elections. directly to recent moves in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in order to protect their monarchies. This report seeks to highlight abuses and put into context the scale of human rights violations A boycott of Qatar and Turkey began in April 2017 against those who are the very essence of Saudi and a decree was issued to all prominent figures Arabia – its citizens. A fairer society is not simply in the Kingdom to support the move and speak accorded by giving its citizens access to ‘freedom against the state of Qatar in clear terms with open toys’ like cinema, concerts, and shopping malls criticism. but the basic of right to choose their individual, societal and national political and social direction. At the same time a major crackdown began against those who opposed the rising tension But this report is no counsel of despair – it ends between the various states and sought a more with a plan. As the Saudi government continues its peaceful and conciliatory approach. Dozens of PR-led campaign towards acceptance as a fully- influential clerics and intellectuals were detained fledged member of the international community which signalled the start of a sweeping repression – this project seeks to provide the basis for those on the expression of thoughts and opinions. who believe in human rights to insist on the release of these prisoners as the minimum price of The bloggers, activists, academics and religious admission. scholars imprisoned are ‘charged’ with acting on behalf of “foreign parties against the security of In November 2020, Saudi Arabia will host the the kingdom” and accused of having ties to groups G20. Already we have seen the leaders of some of like the Muslim Brotherhood. Several of those the world’s great cities boycott the U20 Mayors’ FOREWORD detained and still serving sentences without trials Summit, and we have seen recent attempts at are for the ‘criminal act’ of sending tweets calling ‘sportswashing’ – notably the proposed purchase for reconciliation or concern for those imprisoned of Newcastle United Football Club – fall apart. SALADIN ALI, CEO, GRANT LIBERTY for thought crimes. We believe that campaigning works, that media pressure works, and that the Saudi authorities can Human rights issues that existed in the past be made to see sense. have now escalated to alarming proportions Grant Liberty fights for communities around the to their arrest, to the barbaric treatment they which include unlawful killings; executions for We need to build the deepest and broadest world whose human rights are being trampled have suffered and the legal position they face. We non-violent offences; forced renditions; forced coalition possible to fight for change. In that spirit I and whose voices are being silenced. It is only include new data providing insight into the bigger disappearances; and torture of prisoners and would like to thank everyone who has contributed natural, therefore, that we begin with prisoners of picture alongside individual testimonies detailing detainees by government agents. We have also to the publication of this report, particularly conscience. the very real personal torment from the family seen ransoming and the arrest and torture of Lina al-Hathloul, Areej al-Sadhan, Abdullah members of those in prison. In Saudi Arabia today, activists are languishing in family members. Alaoudah and Adbullah al-Ghamdi who have jail for the crime of wanting a better world. They The ultimate cause of this report is Saudi Arabia’s written movingly about their loved ones and their The crackdown has led to arbitrary arrest and have been tortured, forced into hunger strikes and monarchy run by prince Muhammad bin Salman, conditions, and I would like to thank our friends detention; the mass arrest of political prisoners sexually assaulted, held in solitary confinement for the son of the 83-year-old King Salman bin across civil society who have taken the time to – including for acts committed as children; months on end and separated from their families. Abdulaziz Al Saud. They can both be considered as look at this report and offer their kind thoughts restrictions on freedoms of peaceful assembly, Many still await charge years after their arrest, and joint heads of state and the government, with the and comments. association, and movement; severe restrictions of some have seen their family members and lawyers 35-year-old son in overall charge of affairs. religious freedom; trafficking in persons; violence This report is the first of many we will publish at follow them into prison. The king has been in power since the death of his and further persecution of women, although new Grant Liberty, In the coming months our team will This report seeks to provide a comprehensive brother in 2015; his son has been running all affairs women’s rights initiatives were implemented, campaign for human rights wherever and however analysis of the position of prisoners of conscience of the Kingdom since 2017. They are both heavily many of the champions of women’s right are we can from the concentration camps of Uighurs in Saudi Arabia – from the campaigning that led influenced by fear of the Arab spring and the rising imprisoned for the exact causes that have now to women’s rights in Bangladesh. been accorded. Saudis are not granted the SALADIN ALI | CEO at GRANT LIBERTY

6 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 7 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 134 of 174

IN BRIEF REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Royal Family; 12 Women's Rights Artist; 9 309 Activists; 27 Academic; 37 Known prisoners of conscience we detail, arrested in the MBS-era or whose cases continue Business Person; Religious Figures; 21 46

Family Member; 21

Minors; 20 Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia are being family members of activists – even of the peaceful Government official; 26 tortured, sexually assaulted and even political campaigning for which their loved ones murdered. Behind the expensive PR is a have angered the authorities.

regime that systematically abuses prisoners Journalist; 54 Human Rights of conscience by the hundred against its own But we begin with first person accounts of family Activist; 44 Known Prisoners Of rules and in violation of the international members of those whose loved ones remain Conscience By Numbers treaties it has signed. in prison – Lina al-Hathloul, Areej al-Sadhan, Abudllah al-Odah and Abdullah al-Ghamdi. Their In this report we tell the stories of the young stories are a stain on the conscience of the world.. people put to death for crimes committed at ages Ultimately, this report proves that the murder as young as 10; we show how simply calling for of Jamal Khashoggi was not an aberration, it peace in a tweet can lead to the death penalty; 6 represents standard operating practice. MBS might Sexual Violence and we list those who have died in custody in as well stand for murder, brutality and sexual suspicious circumstances. Solitary confinement 44 assault.

We detail the depths of industrial scale physical Observers denied access to court hearings 14 The rest of the world needs to wake up – Saudi and psychological torture from the widespread Arabia must not be welcomed into the community use of electric shocks to beatings and even sexual Enforced disappearance 34 of respectable nations while it tortures, abuses abuse. We demonstrate the extensive use of and murders its own people. Denied access to healthcare 18 prolonged solitary confinement and the repeated enforced separation of prisoners from their legal And the rest of the world needs to stand up – Torture and ill-treatment 51 teams and families. through international conferences, and global sports events the Saudi regime seeks to make Denied access to a lawyer 91 We show how women’s rights activists have been others complicit in their crimes. They must targeted even after the laws they campaigned to refuse – and demand the release of prisoners of Denied contact with family 65 change have been amended, the waves of arrests conscience in Saudi Arabia. that have seen religious leaders and journalists Arbitrary arrest/ detention 212 silenced, and the despicable targeting of the 0 50 100 150 200 250

Counts Of Human Rights Violations

8 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 9 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 135 of 174

PART ONE: CONTEXT In this section, we set out the context and reasoning for our focus on the MBS era. In particular we summarise the history of human rights and political prisoners in the Kingdom, and analyse the geo-political strategy behind the decisions of the MBS era – notably, the apparent contradiction between genuine reform, and the continued victimisation of activists – even those whose calls for reform have largely been granted.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was established in 1932 as an absolute Monarchy. Although its lineage of rulers formally holds absolute power, they wield that power in coordination with a range of influential interest groups, including the state’s conservative Sunni religious establishment, independent clerics, other members of the royal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY family, security services, and senior members of the Saudi business community.

When Mohammed bin Salman assumed office This report focusses on the plight of prisoners of as Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, his arrival was greeted amongst Western elites with an conscience arrested in the Mohammed bin Salman era, excitement matching an understandable desire and those whose cases continue. for reform within the Kingdom. That desire for reform sat within a geo-political strategy – articulated within the Vision 20301– which seeks to transition the Saudi economy away from its dependency on oil by diversifying the The mistreatment of political prisoners in Saudi humanitarian Abdulrahman al-Sadhan Kingdom’s domestic output into new and green Arabia is taking place on an industrial scale, but technologies, amongst others. but it is also a clear answer to the question it is important not to let the sheer extent of abuse Abdullah al-Odah, writes about his father, Salman that had defined the Western elite approach to cloud the fact that every case we document al-Odah, who faces the death penalty for as little The MBS era can properly be understood in two Saudi Arabia in the MBS era. Is he really a great represents a personal tragedy. We cannot speak to as a tweet hoping for peace with Qatar phases, divided by a single date – October 2 2018. reformer? The answer is written in his blood – no. those held in Saudi jails, so we begin with the next In the first 16 months of the Crown Prince’s de And Abdullah al-Ghamdi discusses the cases of his best thing – the stories of their loved ones. facto rule, his actions were widely regarded as Today Saudi Arabia languishes at 170 out of 180 mother and two brothers, arrested and tortured 2 positive by the international community - even as on the world press freedom index and 149th for no more than their association with him and 3 Lina al-Hathloul discusses the case of her sister, waves of arrests intensified. on the Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index . the celebrated women’s rights activist and Nobel his peaceful campaigning. As Human Rights Watch put it, Saudi authorities Prize nominee, Loujain al-Hathloul On 2 October 2018 everything changed. repress dissidents, human rights activists, and Journalist, thinker, campaigner and in recent independent clerics.4 Areej al-Sadhan, gives her perspective on her years Washington Post columnist, Jamal brother’s arrest and continued detention, the Khashoggi was brutally murdered inside the Saudi Many of the prisoners we document have not Arabian embassy in Turkey on the express orders been charged, nor even informed of what they are of Mohammed bin Salman. Jamal Khashoggi’s accused. For those who have been we see a litany death is first and foremost a tragedy for his of trumped-up charges from spurious claims of family and those who loved and respected him, links to terror and espionage to general sedition.

10 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 11 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 136 of 174

PART TWO: PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE IN THE MBS ERA WAVES OF ARRESTS

After Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince, the Saudi authorities In this section of the report we present our analysis of the current launched a series of arrest campaigns apparently aimed at eliminating position of prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia. Below, we catalogue internal opposition. The arrests came in a series of distinct waves. prisoners in two ways. Firstly, through human rights violations, and secondly, we categorise the prisoners into groups, from women’s rights activists to journalists to those whose ‘crimes’ were committed as Wave 1 minors. In September 2017, three months after Muhammad bin Salman assumed the 78 mandate of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the authorities launched their Potential opposition September purge targeting prominent Saudis, including clerics, academics, intellectuals, journalists, and human rights activists. METHODOLOGY

To produce this assessment of the condition of prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia we have analysed available data from NGOs, government and international agencies, and conducted direct interviews with family members of a number of prisoners. We have heavily leaned on the research and publications of friends across civil society in Wave 2 order to bring together all available data - any mistakes are of course our own. In particular we would like to thank On the evening of November 4, 2017, the Saudi Press Agency announced a royal organisations whose work made this report possible, including: order establishing a supreme anti-corruption committee headed by Crown Prince 43 Mohammed bin Salman. Later that same evening, the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya TV • ALQST Arrests of “extortion” began broadcasting reports of the authorities launching a massive campaign of • MENA Rights Group arrests of 43 of prominent persons involved in corruption cases. • The Committee to Protect Journalists • Amnesty International • Human Rights Watch • European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights Wave 3 • Front Line Defenders In May 2018, a few weeks before the Saudi authorities lifted the ban on women • Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain 15 driving on June 24, the authorities began a large coordinated campaign against • Gulf Centre for Human Rights the Saudi women’s rights movement. The authorities arrested prominent activists Arrests of women’s rights in the field of women’s rights and charged some of them with serious crimes that • Detainees.net defenders appear directly related to their activities. Although we have done all we can to ensure that our information is correct and up to date it must be stressed that the control the Saudi regime retains over information and free expression in the Kingdom means that the full picture is permanently obscured. Wave 4 As such, the data we present is likely to be an underestimate of the full scale of the barbaric treatment of prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia. 17 On or around April 4, 2019, and despite continued international criticism over Khashoggi’s killing, Saudi Arabia carried out a new campaign of arrests, this time April 2019 arrests targeting 17 writers and activists.

12 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 13 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 137 of 174

Death Penalty There are three categories of political prisoners facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia – religious figures, a human rights activist and, incredibly, those who committed their supposed crimes as children. We have found evidence of at least five young people who have been executed in the MBS era for so-called crimes committed as children, and there are a further 13 young men facing death for ‘crimes’ committed as minors such as attending a funeral and sending text messages– all Shia from the Qatif region, all related to political protests in 2011/12. In addition, prosecutors are seeking the HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS death penalty against four leading Islamic thinkers in Saudi Arabia – Ali al-Omari, Awad al-Qarni, Hassan Farhan al-Maliki and Salman In the MBS era, prisoners of conscience have been subject to a range al-Odah. of abusive practices, often in contravention of both international and Case study – Muhammed Essam Al-Faraj, facing death for attending Saudi law. These practices included: a funeral

Case study - Ali al-Omari, a scholar and media personality to be put Torture The torture of prisoners is nominally illegal in Saudi Arabia. In law, to death on trumped up charges officers who are responsible for the abuse of prisoners are to be held criminally responsible, judges are prohibited from accepting Hunger Strikes Hunger strikes are traditionally a rarity in Saudi society – not least confessions obtained under duress5 , and the Saudi state is a because of cultural taboos around self-harm and suicide. In the signatory of the 1987 Convention against Torture and other cruel years before MBS came to power we can find only two examples of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment6. But when it hunger strikes in Saudi jails. In the three years since the new Crown comes to prisoners of conscience, torture is endemic. We find Prince was appointed we have evidence of a marked increase in evidence of at least 51 individuals who have suffered physical abuse hunger strikes in Saudi jails. At least a further 12 prisoners have at the hands of their captors. endured hunger strikes since MBS’ appointment.

Case study – Khaled al-Omar, thrown in jail for reporting the abuse Case Study – ACPRA 7, members of the Saudi Civil and Political he suffered Rights Association Solitary Confinement Prolonged solitary confinement is itself a form of torture. In Saudi Arabian prisons prolonged solitary confinement – over a legal limit Sexual Violence We will never know the full extent of abuses in Saudi jails while the of 15 days – is against the law. Nevertheless, we know of at least 44 draconian attacks on free speech and arbitrary arrests of those the prisoners to have been held in prolonged solitary confinement – regime consider to be politically troublesome continues. Prisoners many indefinitely. face the threat of greater abuse if they reveal their torture; family members face the danger of putting their loved ones at risk – or Case Study – Martaja Qureiris, arrested at 13 for crimes committed at facing arrest themselves. As such, abuses are – by design - cloaked 10, he has spent more than 5% of his life in solitary by the regime. Nevertheless, we know of at least 6 victims of sexual violence in Saudi jails. It is no surprise that all are women’s rights Arbitrary Detention Saudi Arabia has a long and notorious record of holding criminal activists, suggesting deliberate, targeted attacks and at the very suspects without charge or trial for months and years. In May 2018, least raising questions about complicity or even direction from for example, Human Rights Watch found over 2,300 people under senior figures. arrest for more than 6 months without seeing a judge, and almost 1,800 under arrest for over a year, 250 hadn’t seen a judge three Case study – Nouf Abdulaziz, writer and women’s rights activist years after their arrest. Our analysis shows the picture with political prisoners is no different. 212 of the prisoners of 309 conscience we detail suffered arbitrary arrest.

Case study – Walid Fathi, never once informed of what he was accused

14 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 15 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 138 of 174

Journalists Jamal Khashoggi, murdered two years ago, may be the highest profile victim of Mohammed bin Salman’s crackdown on journalistic freedom, but he is far from alone. We detail 54 journalists, 46 arrested in the three years since MBS took control of the Kingdom, 22 in 2019 alone, of those one is dead (and there are unconfirmed reports of a second, Turki al-Jasser, profiled below), 9 have been released, 2 are on temporary release awaiting sentencing, and the remaining 33 are in prison. CATEGORIES OF PRISONER Case study – Turki al-Jasser, not heard from since his arrest in March 2018, there are unconfirmed reports that he died from torture in In the years since Muhammad bin Salman assumed the mandate of the November 2018 covenant in 2017, Saudi authorities have launched a series of waves of arrests targeting a range of prominent Saudi citizens, public figures, Human Rights Activists Activists have faced arbitrary arrest, torture, solitary confinement, activists, government employees and even artists. We have organised and the denial of basic rights such as the right to see their lawyer or these individuals into the following groups: family members. Worse still, Abdullah al-Hamid, the former poet, professor and ACPRA member, died in prison in April 2020 following the denial of medical care. We detail 44 excluding journalists and women’s rights campaigners we discuss elsewhere Women’s Rights Activists Today, there are at least 12 female women’s rights activists held Case study – Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, the humanitarian held for in Saudi prisons. They are Nouf Abdulaziz al-Jeraiwi, Loujain al- almost three years, kept from his family for two. Hathloul, Mayaa al-Zahrani, Samar Badawi, Nassima al-Sadah, Israa Al-Ghamgham, Maha Al-Rafidi, Khadija al-Harbi, Fatima Al-Nassif, Aisha al-Marzooq, Naima al-Matrood and Noor Al-Muslim. A further Business Leaders In the autumn of 2017 Saudi authorities made a series of mass 12 females have been arrested and held in the MBS era. arrests ostensibly targeting corruption in the Kingdom. Notoriously, Case study – Loujain al-Hathloul, celebrated campaigner and Nobel senior business people, government officials and members of the Prize nominee on hunger strike at time of writing Saudi royal family were imprisoned inside the palatial Ritz-Carlton hotel. There are reports that up to 200 people were arrested. Human Rights Watch describes what happened next as extortion8. Minors The Saudi state makes no allowances for age when it comes to Case study Saleh Kamil, once a billionaire, now unclear whether persecuting even the mildest critics of the regime. We have found and how much he paid for his release evidence of the 20 young people arrested or held for acts committed as minors. Incredibly, since King Salman came to power his government has executed 11 people for crimes allegedly committed Artists As is common amongst repressive regimes through time and as children, 7 - 5 of them prisoner of conscience. In 2018, the around the world, poets, musicians and artists have not been safe Kingdom stated that it did not execute children, the following year it from attacks on free speech and free expression. We know of at executed six children. least 9 artists held as prisoners of conscience in the MBS era. Case study – Ali al-Nimr facing death after 8 years in prison for the Case study – Rabee Hafez, is singer songwriter who protested his ‘crime’ of attending a funeral friends arrest

16 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 17 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 139 of 174

Religious Figures On his ascent to the Crown, one of Mohammed bin Salman’s first Family Members One of the most insidious and disturbing habits of the Saudi security acts was to prepare for and carry out his September purge. 24 forces is the arrest of family members of political prisoners. They religious figures were arrested in September 2017 alone. The victims have been arrested for as little as showing support for their loved of that ‘September Purge’ – 78 in all – have been tortured, held in ones, or simply through association. They have been tortured, held prolonged solitary confinement, denied urgent health care, and as in solitary confinement, and held without access to their families or noted above, four of the religious leaders arrested that month today lawyers. face the death penalty. Just two have been permanently released. We have evidence of at least 21 prisoners arrested due to their Case study – Salman al-Odah, facing death for advocating peace on association with targets of the regime. Of those, 81% have never twitter been charged and just three have been released. Case Study – the al-Ghamdis, a whole family arrested after one man’s peaceful activism Government Officials The powerful and influential figures arrested in November 2017 included several government officials who had fallen foul of the MBS regime. Among those arrested were the former Director of the Royals The Ritz-Carlton arrests of November 2017 represented a brutal ‘anti-extortion crimes unit’, former ministers and mayors, military assertion of political power by the then new Crown Prince experts, royal household officials and judges. Most of those arrested Mohammed bin Salman. Many of those targeted were connected have been released without charge however eight remain in prison to his father’s predecessor as King, King Abdullah. Some of those including Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammad al-Sultan, a former imprisoned were his sons, their arrests signifying the crushing of commander of the Royal Saudi Navy. In addition government a rival powerbase at the top of Saudi society. Of those arrested workers are not immune from arbitrary arrest. in November 2017, at least two remain in prison. They are Prince Case study – Adel Fakih, arrested for a TikTok video Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud and Prince Turki bin Abdullah. Case Study – Turki bin Abdullah, son of King Abdullah whose aide died during the incident Academics One of the least understood and documented categories of political prisoner in Saudi Arabia are the academics. There is an undeniable lack of free expression and free thought on Saudi campuses. The US State Department notes that academics reportedly practiced Died In Custody It is a tragic inevitability that with so many prisoners of self-censorship, and authorities prohibited professors and conscience treated so badly – beaten, abused, sexually assaulted, administrators at public universities from hosting meetings at their psychologically tortured and denied medical assistance – that there universities with foreign academics or diplomats without prior will be deaths in custody or in the days immediately following the government permission9. We have found evidence of 37 academics release of a prisoner. It is impossible to know how many of those held as prisoners of conscience in the Kingdom (26 arrested in whose whereabouts remain unknown are still alive. We do however 2017 alone). Of those, 26 suffered arbitrary detention, 9 have been know of at least four who have died in custody (or in the days after denied access to their families, 4 have been tortured, and 5 held in release from terminal illness brought on in prison) – they are the prolonged solitary confinement. journalist Saleh al-Shehi, the royal aide and military leader Major General Ali al-Qahtani, the poet and ACPRA founder Abdullah al- Case study - Abdul Rahman al-Shumayri Hamid and the former Dean of the Quran Faculty at the University of Medina Ahmad al-Ammari.

18 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 19 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 140 of 174

PART THREE: ACTIVISM In the chapters above we have detailed the injustice, abuse and torment facing prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia under Mohammed Bin Salman. But we do not believe this is the end of the story.

The Saudi regime under MBS faces an uncertain within our political system and within our ministry. future. As the world transitions away from fossil fuels, so in turn the Kingdom is seeking to “There is a variety of views. Some people say it transition its economy away from its own reliance doesn’t matter what other people think of us, on oil. To do this, the current regime has begun what is important is to do what is right for our Repression and intimidation are an unprecedented PR campaign. By definition, country, and if people knowingly break our laws that means the Saudi regime is sensitive to its they should be punished according to those laws. global reputation which in turn provides an Other people say it isn’t worth it, let them out, let not - and never should be - the unprecedented opportunity to force progressive them live their lives and ignore them.” change in the Kingdom. 10 These words should of course be taken with a acceptable companions of reform. EXTERNAL PRESSURE WORKS pinch of salt but they do clearly suggest that there are actors within government who are sensitive to As this report goes to press, the Saudi political and media pressure. Ambassador to the UK has discussed the case for clemency for prisoners of conscience in the JAMAL KHASHOGGI, SAUDI JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR (1958 - 2018) Kingdom. His words are worth printing in full.

“People ask: is it worth the damage it is causing you, whatever they did? That is a fair argument to make and it is a discussion we have back at home

20 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 21 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 141 of 174

G20 BEYOND Nothing is set in stone.

Given evidence that the Saudi regime is at least in part susceptible to external political and media pressure, it therefore follows that human rights activists around the world are not powerless. Instead we believe coordinated action can help free prisoners of conscience in the Kingdom. As this report goes to press, Donald Trump – MBS’s most significant international ally – is reluctantly preparing to leave the White Similarly, the popular journalist Zahra Hankir publicly refused to compère the W20 event11 – the House. His successor – Joe Biden has talked about the Saudi regime stream of the G20 process focussed on women. in a completely different way – he has described the Kingdom as a In a similar vein, Saudi Arabia announced its In September this year, Freedom Forward led a first women’s golf events – part of the Ladies pariah, pledging an end to the Trump-era ‘blank cheque’ in the face coalition of global human rights groups including European Tour, in March. The leading Brit on of human rights abuses. 17 ALQST, MENA Rights Group and Action Corps in a the tour, Meghan Maclaren withdrew from the coordinated call for city leaders to boycott the U20 event, stating clearly a refusal to be complicit in 12 event – part of the wider G20 process . That work, the regime’s attempts at sportswashing15 . The combined with media pressure, led to three major events were initially delayed due to Coronavirus, city leaders – the Mayors of New York, Los Angeles however, at time of writing the Aramco Saudi In this new global order, MBS’ Vision 2030 looks increasingly precarious, 13 and London, announcing boycotts of the event . Ladies International and the Saudi Ladies Team and as we have seen, we know actors within the regime are at least International were due to take place between the acknowledging pressure from the international community to release Outside the G20 process, like many other 12 and 19th of November. As part of the global of prisoners of conscience. oppressive regimes in recent years, the Saudi campaign against Saudi sportswashing Lina public relations campaign has sought to benefit al-Hathloul wrote to the leading players on the So the lesson to activists is clear - now is the time to redouble our from an association with popular sport – Ladies European Tour begging them to boycott the efforts. Saudi Arabia cannot succeed in a post-oil economy if it remains commonly referred to as ‘sports-washing’. event. a pariah. The Kingdom’s rulers are by necessity more susceptible to In the first half of 2020, the Saudi Public political lobbying than ever before. If activists keep campaigning, if we At time of writing, in the coming weeks Saudi Investment Fund – the regime’s sovereign wealth keep showcasing the stories and the voices of the victims of this regime, Arabia is expected to host the G20 from Riyadh. fund, therefore effectively controlled by the Crown if we keep lobbying our own governments and those around the world, The ongoing Coronavirus will rob the regime of the Prince and his team – sought to engineer the change can come. sorts of pictures they will have expected when they purchase of Newcastle United Football Club, one took on the presidency of the G20. Nevertheless of the best supported clubs in the richest and most For MBS and the Saudi regime our message is clear - a wave of change the event marks a seminal moment in the MBS popular sporting league in the world, the English is coming. Now is the time to do the right thing. Your economy, your regime. World leaders are left with a binary choice Premier League. Grant Liberty, alongside other national strategy and your regime will not survive growing international – either attend and become complicit in the groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty disgust at the abuses you inflict on your own people. Acting now is in human rights abuses in the Kingdom, or take a International and Fair Square, campaigned your own interests. Free your prisoners of conscience before that wave stand. The European Parliament has urged the EU vigorously against the sale. Ultimately, the sale destroys your entire government. to snub the summit16, and Grant Liberty is part of a fell through, not least because of a commercial global coalition of activists calling on government dispute between the Saudi regime and the to boycott the event. As a minimum, governments Premier League relating to broadcasting rights14 , should insist on the release of prisoners of but the clear intention to use the world game to conscience as the price for their attendance. increase the Kingdom’s soft power was clear.

22 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 23 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 142 of 174

FAMILY TESTIMONIALS My sister Loujain al-Hathloul ... My father Salman al-Odah ...

My sister is an award-winning women’s rights activist, she has been My father faces the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. His crime? He tweeted nominated for the Nobel Prize and she is celebrated all around the an innocuous message to his 14 million twitter followers wishing an end world. Except at home in Saudi Arabia, where she languishes in a to the diplomatic standoff with Qatar. maximum-security prison. Since his arrest in September 2017 he has been held in solitary Loujain dared to campaign for women’s right to drive and an end to the confinement. Three years alone. He has been mistreated, handcuffed, outdated and outrageous male guardianship laws. She dared to attend blindfolded and chained inside his cell, and deprived of sleep and international conferences outside of the kingdom to discuss the truth medications – brutalised to the point that he had to be taken to hospital. about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. She spoke out about the injustice Our extended family have been banned from travelling and my uncle of a system which grants men almost total superiority before the law. In was arrested because he tweeted about my father. I am lucky – I am in 2018 she spoke at a UN conference in Geneva where she called on the the US – but my passport has been frozen and the Saudi authorities seek Kingdom to live up to its international agreements on gender equality. to intimidate me every chance they get. Shortly after returning to the gulf, she was kidnapped. We haven’t seen her since. My father is a popular and well-respected man. That is why he has been targeted. The authorities use trumped-up charges under terror laws to In prison, my sister has been tortured and degraded, and sexually exert their power over activists from my father to Loujain al-Hathloul and abused. I fear for her life every day. As I write this my sister is on hunger Maysa al-Almoudi. strike – the second in a matter of months – in a desperate bid to force her jailers to give her access to our parents in accordance with Saudi law. A year after he was taken, my father appeared in front of the notorious specialised criminal court - now a tool to hammer out any dissent Loujain is not alone. Samar Badawi, Nouf Abdulaziz and many others or activism within the kingdom by cowing critics into silence by way all remain behind bars. They too have been treated appallingly. The of its fearsome reputation, or silencing them permanently through international community must not be complicit in these crimes. Saudi the death penalty. Charges are so vague – such as the “mocking” Arabia’s transparent attempts to use its wealth to camouflage its accusation against my father – that they would be laughable were the severe state-sponsored human rights abuses against women cannot consequences not so grave. Lina al-Hathloul be allowed to succeed. Hosting major events like the G20 rewards the Abdullah al-Odah kingdom with its desired PR image: a powerful, modern country and But this is deadly serious. They want to kill my father. If they do, it will be global economic power, and draws international attention away from state-sanctioned murder and they cannot be allowed to get away with it. the reality of rights abuses that occur just miles away. Neither women nor world leaders should be complicit in this fiction.

As long as women inside of Saudi Arabia cannot safely speak, it is the duty of the international community to raise its voice on their behalf

24 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 25 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 143 of 174

My brother Abdulrahman al-Sadhan ... My mother Aida al-Ghamdi ...

My brother- an aid worker with the Red Crescent – has gone missing In 2012, I was granted asylum in Britain – I had been campaigning to put for almost 3 years. He was detained for no reason except for expressing an end to the dictatorship and authoritarian policies in Saudi Arabia. peaceful opinions on Twitter about social justice and human rights issues. I was lucky because I got out – but it is another story for my family. My mother, Aida Al-Ghamdi and two of my brothers were arrested. No Several witnesses have reported that my brother was subjected to explanation has ever been provided but there is no denying the truth. severe torture, some said his injuries might kill him. Information drips They were arrested not because they had committed a crime, but out because prisoners know the punishment for speaking out about the because of my activism. abuse that goes on behind cell doors. My family and I have tried every possible way to find out what is going on, how he is. But we are met with My mother is 64. She suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. a wall of silence. When she was arrested with my brother they were tortured in front of each other. They were beaten and had cigarettes put out on their skin. This silence from the Saudi authorities is a clear indication that they are My brother was forced to record a video denouncing me so official Saudi trying to hide the abuses. We all know what has happened to others – channels could post it on social media. I was told that any contact with the torture and the horrible murder of Jamal Khashoggi. my family would endanger their lives further. We hear stories that my brother has been forced into hunger strike due I am still forbidden from speaking to them. It is agony. I have been told to the inhumane treatment. Since he was detained, he was denied any that the only way they will release my mother and brothers will be if I go contact with us, except for a one-time 1-minute call 9 months ago, that back to Saudi Arabia and hand myself in, but I have no way to know if came after increasing international pressure. He was never allowed to this is true. call us again. We know he is suffering. The last 2 and a half years has been a living hell. Now, I am asking the international community to show they are genuinely committed to human rights. They must demand that Saudi My brother is only one of many victims suffering in silence as a result of Arabia release my mother, brothers, and all political prisoners. the increasing human right abuses in the Kingdom. It is dangerous to Areej al-Sadhan speak out – I have been threatened, and I know these threats are not to Abdullah al-Ghamdi be taken lightly – but I will not abandon my brother, nor my conscience. The international community need to demand a stop to these abuses.

I miss my brother terribly. He is a compassionate, caring man with a passion for helping others. We just want him to be released and come back safe. He doesn’t deserve to be treated like this. No one does.

26 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 27 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 144 of 174

MBS ERA Saudi Arabia wasn’t always this repressive. Now it’s unbearable. PART ONE: CONTEXT

This report focusses on the plight of prisoners of conscience arrested in the Mohammed bin Salman era, and those whose cases continue. In this section, we set out the context and reasoning for that decision. In particular we summarise the history of human rights and political prisoners in the Jamal Khashoggi, Washington Post September 18, 201733 Kingdom, and analyse the geo-political strategy behind the decisions of the MBS era – notably, the apparent contradiction between genuine reform, and the continued victimisation of activists – even those whose calls for reform have largely been granted.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was established state in which prisoners of conscience have faced sat within a geo-political strategy – articulated their guardian), and could attend sporting events, in 1932 as an absolute Monarchy. Although its incarceration, brutality, and even murder. While within the Vision 2030 26 – which seeks to transition take part in sports and join the military, whilst lineage of rulers formally holds absolute power, it is true that in the period before MBS ascended the Saudi economy away from its dependency on the requirement for male permission to receive they wield that power in coordination with a to his position as Crown Prince the Kingdom oil by diversifying the Kingdom’s domestic output education, get healthcare, or open a business range of influential interest groups, including the instituted moderate reforms – the 90s saw the into new and green technologies, amongst others. was removed27 – pointed to a long-term agenda state’s conservative Sunni religious establishment, creation of a written constitution18 , the 2000s of modernisation including developing and independent clerics, other members of the royal saw the advent of voting (for men) in municipal This plan, while building from the immense enshrining human rights in the Kingdom. Ongoing family, security services, and senior members of elections19 , and the 2010s saw women first join the wealth created through decades of world leading human rights violations such as the arrest of the Saudi business community. Consultative Assembly20 – the overriding essence oil revenues, necessitates a new approach political prisoners and persecution of religious of the state remains: one which persecutes from the Kingdom. In short, in a world beyond minorities were dismissed or ignored by some in The complex internal politics of the Kingdom has thinkers, activists and human rights campaigners. fossil fuels, Saudi Arabia will no longer control the West as vestiges of an old regime. Rome wasn’t frequently confounded Western observers. In the production of a global necessity. Thus, the built in a day. particular, the extent to which individual actors Under the reign of King Abdullah (2005-2015) state will be left to trade on a more similar, and or groupings are quietly pursuing genuine liberal prominent activists such as Fouad al-Farhan21 and therefore competitive basis, with the rest of the On 2 October 2018 that logic was exposed as democratic reform in the face of powerful and Raif Badawi22 were jailed for criticising the regime. world. It, therefore, follows that the usual tools of wishful thinking. Journalist, thinker, campaigner dangerous conservative forces is a frequent – And in the first two years of the reign of King diplomacy – notably reputation and soft power – and in recent years Washington Post columnist, though all too often, ultimately disappointed – Salman – the period before MBS became Crown will become increasingly important to the state as Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered inside the refrain. Prince – activists such as the human rights lawyer they transition away from oil development. This is Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey on the express Waleed Abulkhair23 , journalist Alaa Brinji24 and the logic of the MBS repositioning. orders of Mohammed bin Salman. What we do know, however, is that regardless of ACPRA activists Abd al-Aziz al-Shubaily and Issa al- the intent of any prospective reformers, the story Hamid were imprisoned for political activity25. The MBS era can properly be understood in two Khashoggi had been a critic of MBS’ crackdown of human rights in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia phases, divided by a single date – October 2 2018. on free speech and human rights – he wrote in is lamentable. Free expression is non-existent, When Mohammed bin Salman assumed office In the first 16 months of the Crown Prince’s de the Washington Post of his disquiet of a band women’s rights range from minuscule to non- as Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, his arrival facto rule, his actions were widely regarded as of arrests – the September purge – in which existent, political parties are illegal. was greeted amongst Western elites with an positive. A suite of reforms – in 2017 and 2018 for academics and writers, such as his friend Essam excitement matching an understandable desire for example, women were finally allowed the right Al-Zamil, were detained on trumped-up charges The predictable result of these policies is a police reform within the Kingdom. That desire for reform to drive (providing they have the permission of by the regime. Three years on, they are almost

28 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 29 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 145 of 174

all still in prison, many have been tortured and confined to abusive solitary confinement, four face the death penalty, and 13 have not been able to contact their family since the day of their arrest. At Royal Family; 12 Women's Rights Artist; 9 the time of those arrests, Khashoggi wrote: “I am Activists; 27 Academic; 37 raising my voice. To do otherwise would betray those who languish in prison. I can speak when Known Prisoners Of so many cannot. I want you to know that Saudi Conscience By Numbers Business Person; Arabia has not always been as it is now. We Saudis Religious Figures; 21 deserve better.” He was brutally murdered just 46 over a year later. Family Member; 21 Jamal Khashoggi’s death is first and foremost a

tragedy for his family and those who loved and Minors; 20 respected him, but it is also a clear answer to Government official; 26 the question that had defined the Western elite approach to Saudi Arabia in the MBS era. Is he really a great reformer? The answer is written in unrelated to terrorism, violence, or espionage Journalist; 54 Human Rights blood – no. Activist; 44 against the state. International NGOs, the United Today Saudi Arabia languishes at 170 out of 180 Nations, and others criticized the government for on the world press freedom index28 and 149th abusing its antiterrorism prerogative to detain or on the Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index29 . arrest some dissidents or critics of the government As Human Rights Watch put it, Saudi authorities or royal family on security-related grounds who in 2019 continued to repress dissidents, human had not espoused or committed violence.”32 250 rights activists, and independent clerics30. Amnesty International concludes “The authorities Thus, we are left, as so often with ‘strong man’ escalated repression of the rights to freedom autocratic leaders, with a dichotomy between the desired public image and the reality. However, the of expression, association and assembly. They 200 194 harassed, arbitrarily detained and prosecuted Crown’s strategic plan – its Vision 2030 - continues. dozens of government critics, human rights MBS continues to court the West. We believe he is defenders, including women’s rights activists, therefore open to public and media pressure – as 150 members of the Shi’a minority and family we will set out in the concluding chapter of this members of activists.”31 report. As such, this report focusses on the crimes and brutality which has taken place under his

Many of the prisoners we document have not leadership. 100 been charged, nor even informed of what they are 75 accused. For those who have been we see a litany Influential global actors with a genuine interest of trumped-up charges from spurious claims of in human rights could and should use the data, links to terror and espionage to general sedition. analysis and stories contained within this report 50 to put pressure on the Saudi regime to deliver As the US state department notes, “In many cases 18 it was impossible to determine the legal basis for real change. Freeing prisoners of conscience – 9 13 from women’s rights activists to journalists and incarceration and whether the detention complied 0 with international norms and standards. Those campaigners for peace – should be the minimum Deceased Facing Death Penalty In Prison Released Temporary Release who remained imprisoned after trial, including price of entry for the Kingdom to play a full role in the global community. persons who were political activists openly Counts Of Prisoners Of Conscience By Status critical of the government, were often convicted of terrorism-related crimes. The SCC tries political and human rights activists for non-violent actions

30 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 31 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 146 of 174

METHODOLOGY To produce this assessment of the condition of prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia PART TWO: PRISONERS OF we have analysed available data from NGOs, government and international agencies, and conducted direct interviews with family members of a number of prisoners. We have heavily leaned on the research and publications of friends across civil society in order to bring CONSCIENCE together all available data - any mistakes are of course our own. In particular we would like to thank organisations whose work made this report possible, including: In this section of the report we present our analysis of the current position • ALQST of known prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia. Below, we catalogue • MENA Rights Group prisoners in two ways. • The Committee to Protect Journalists • Amnesty International

First, through the manner of their treatment, the human rights violations endured and violence they have • Human Rights Watch suffered. Thus, we explain and quantify the extent of torture, sexual violence, death penalty, hunger strikes, • European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights prolonged solitary confinement, and arbitrary detention. • Front Line Defenders Second, we categorise the prisoners into groups, notably women’s rights activists, minors, journalists, • Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain human rights activists, business figures, artists, religious figures, government officials, academics, family members of political figures, royals, those who have died, and those whose whereabouts is unknown. • Gulf Centre for Human Rights Naturally, there is a small amount of cross over between the groups, however we believe it is valuable to • Detainees.net understand the extent to which particular categories of political prisoners are currently incarcerated. as well as conversations with the families of a number of prisoners and our own analysis.

We have included all prisoners arrested in the MBS-era and those whose cases continue NUMBER OF DETAINEES – either because they remain in prison on political charges or because their legal ordeal continues.

309 Although we have done all we can to ensure that our information is correct and up to date it must be stressed that the control the Saudi regime retains over information and free ADULT MALES expression in the Kingdom means that the full picture is permanently obscured. Those we know to have been arrested find it difficult to communicate the full extent of their treatment to the outside world – under fear of further torture or worse – and we often discover detention 260 months after the initial arrest – as we shall see, enforced disappearance marks a central element of standard operating procedure for political prisoners.

ADULT FEMALES “As such, the data we present is likely to be an underestimate of the full scale of the barbaric treatment of prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia. In particular, several 29 prisoners are categorised as whereabouts unknown – frankly, we do not know if they are alive. “

MINORS Along-side this report, available on request, we have created an extensive database detailing all 309 prisoners of conscience we discuss in this report – their names, dates of birth and arrest, reasons for arrest, legal position, and any further information from ill-treatment to 20 profession and political associations.

32 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 33 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 147 of 174

Wave 1 WAVES OF ARRESTS

After Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince, the Saudi authorities

launched a series of arrest campaigns apparently aimed at eliminating Wave 2 internal opposition. The arrests came in a series of distinct waves.

Wave 1 Wave 3 Wave 4

In September 2017, three months after Muhammad bin Salman assumed the 78 mandate of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the authorities launched their Potential opposition September purge targeting prominent Saudis, including clerics, academics, intellectuals, journalists, and human rights activists.

Waves Of Arrests In The MBS Era Wave 2 On the evening of November 4, 2017, the Saudi Press Agency announced a royal order establishing a supreme anti-corruption committee headed by Crown Prince 43 Mohammed bin Salman. Later that same evening, the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya TV Arrests of “extortion” began broadcasting reports of the authorities launching a massive campaign of arrests of 43 of prominent persons involved in corruption cases. Sexual Violence 6

Solitary confinement 44

Observers denied access to court hearings 14 Wave 3 Enforced disappearance 34 In May 2018, a few weeks before the Saudi authorities lifted the ban on women 15 driving on June 24, the authorities began a large coordinated campaign against Denied access to healthcare 18 the Saudi women’s rights movement. The authorities arrested prominent activists Arrests of women’s rights in the field of women’s rights and charged some of them with serious crimes that Torture and ill-treatment 51 defenders appear directly related to their activities.

Denied access to a lawyer 91

Denied contact with family 65 Wave 4

Arbitrary arrest/ detention 212 17 On or around April 4, 2019, and despite continued international criticism over 0 50 100 150 200 250 Khashoggi’s killing, Saudi Arabia carried out a new campaign of arrests, this time April 2019 arrests targeting 17 writers and activists. Counts Of Human Rights Violations

34 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 35 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 148 of 174

HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATIONS Torture “The patient suffers from severe weight loss with continuous bloody vomiting. There are also a number of wounds and bruises scattered in several areas of the body”

“There are also a number of visible injuries in the chest and lower back”

We have seen this happen before, but not at this kind of “The patient has difficulty walking because of a number of bruises visible on the legs area. A number scale. It’s the most oppressive era we have witnessed.37 of injuries are also visible on the forearm and lower back area. Malnutrition and obvious dryness on the skin”

HALA AL-DOSARI, SAUDI SCHOLAR AND ACTIVIST, JUNE 2019 “The patient suffers from a number of bruises visible on the body, especially in the areas of back, abdomen and thighs. It also appears to be malnourished due to lack of eating and facial pallor and general weakness in the body” NUMBER OF CASES “The patient cannot move at all due to wounds in both legs as well as severe weakness in the body due to malnutrition and lack of fluids” 51 “The patient suffers from severe burns throughout the body. Old wounds were not completely healed because of medical negligence” Torture and ill- treatment The torture of prisoners is nominally illegal in 16% “The patient suffers from difficulty in movement due to severe malnutrition and general lack of fluids. Saudi Arabia. In law, officers who are responsible of Prisoners Of Conscience There are also a number of bruises, wounds and sores throughout the body” for the abuse of prisoners are to be held criminally responsible, judges are prohibited from accepting confessions obtained under duress ,34 and the Quotations taken from report to Saudi leadership leaked to the Guardian, March 2019 Saudi state is a signatory of the 1987 Convention against Torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment35. The abuse of political prisoners is unquestionably known to Saudi leaders including MBS. A March But when it comes to prisoners of conscience, 2019 Guardian investigation revealed leaked torture is endemic. We find evidence of at least 51 reports to the Saudi leadership documenting individuals who have suffered physical abuse at health professionals’ analysis of the condition of a Case study: Khaled al-Omair the hands of their captors. range of prisoners. In July 2018, human rights activist, Khaled al-Omair was arrested by The abuses we document start from first contact The newspaper published a number of comments State Security a little over a year after the delayed completion of his with the authorities and in the worst cases ends in full, comments reproduced overleaf. eight-year sentence on charges of political activity. in death. The forms of torture we found include severe beatings and flogging; cigarette burns; In 2019 the US state department noted evidence Al-Omair had filed a complaint against an officer who had tortured electric shocks; hanging by hands and feet; beating of at least 17 detainees hospitalized for physical him in prison - he has been handcuffed, placed in prolonged on the soles of the feet; sleep deprivation; injection abuse, and one later died in custody with his body solitary and forced to stand until he passed out. The authorities’ with paralysing substances; being handcuffed and bearing signs of torture. 36 response was at once shocking and predictable – he was arrested. blindfolded while in prison; the use of prolonged On returning to prison he was forced into a hunger strike following solitary confinement and sexual abuse as The cases of torture we find include members of a six months enforced disappearance, in protest at the authorities’ documented in sections below. range of organisations including ACPRA (The Saudi plans to try him in front of criminal court specialising in terrorism Civil and Political Rights association), the Saudi charges. He remains in prison awaiting trial. In a note smuggled out We have seen widespread accounts of forced Liberal Forum, and Al Adalah centre for Human of his prison he wrote, “I am not a terrorist, I have an opinion and confessions under torture and threats to both the Rights. Of the 51 we document, 12 were women, exercised my right to freedom of expression.” individual victim and their family members. This 13 were arrested for crimes committed as children, has been a particularly common occurrence in the 3 were arrested because of the activities of family cases of minors. members and 7 were journalists.

36 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 37 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 149 of 174

Sexual Violence

Rape and other forms of sexual assault in detention are a particularly despicable violation of the inherent dignity and right to physical integrity of every human being; and accordingly constitute an act of torture.38 — UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE

NUMBER OF CASES

Loujain Al-Hathloul was one of five Arabs Samar Badawi received the International featured on Time Magazine’s 100 most Women of Courage Award from U.S. Secretary 6 influential people list40 of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama in 2012. We will never know the full extent of abuses in Sexual Violence 2% Saudi jails while the draconian attacks on free of Prisoners Of Conscience speech and arbitrary arrests of those the regime consider to be politically troublesome continues. Prisoners face the threat of greater abuse if they reveal their torture; family members face the danger of putting their loved ones at risk – or facing arrest themselves. As such, abuses are – by design - cloaked by the regime. Case study: Nouf Abdulaziz That is doubly true for sexual abuse. The stakes are higher to match the revulsion of the international Nouf wrote extensively about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, both community at those who would commit such in her personal blog and in frequent newspaper columns. acts, and cultural taboos facing victims of sexual violence – around the world, but particularly in Since her arrest she has suffered a range of human rights violations Saudi Arabia – create further barriers to prisoners All 6 victims subject to sexual abuse are including prolonged enforced disappearance and solitary who have been abused. women’s rights activists raising serious confinement, there are reports that she has been tortured – questions about deliberate targeting including beaten with a heavy cord – and sexually assaulted. Nevertheless, we know of at least 6 victims of On March 14, 2019, the US free expression organisation PEN sexual violence in Saudi jails. It is of no surprise Those six are: Eman al-Nafjan, Nouf Abdulaziz al awarded Nouf Abdulaziz, alongside fellow imprisoned Saudi that all are women’s rights activists, suggesting Jeraiwi, Loujain al-Hathloul, Mayaa al-Zahrani, activists, Loujain Al-Hathloul, and Eman Al-Nafjan the 2019 PEN deliberate, targeted attacks and at the very Samar Badawi and Maysa al-Mana, all arrested in America/Barbey Freedom to Write Award. 39 least raising questions about complicity or even the wave of women’s rights activists incarcerated direction from senior figures. in the spring and summer of 2018. Today, she remains in prison, still awaiting a fair trial.

38 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 39 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 150 of 174

Death Penalty Case study: Muhammad Essam Al-Faraj

Muhammad Essam Al-Faraj faces the death penalty, almost unbelievably, for attending a funeral. He was nine years old at the NUMBER OF CASES time.

The German human rights charity ESOHR reports that he, alongside other young men facing the death penalty for similar crimes has 18 suffered ‘horrific conditions, including long-term detention before Facing Death Penalty their presentation to the court, solitary confinement, denial of 6% access to a lawyer, torture, and other degrading and inhumane There are three categories of political prisoners of Prisoners Of Conscience treatment.’ 47 facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia – religious figures, a human rights activist and, incredibly, those who committed their supposed crimes as children. Case study: Ali al-Omari Indeed, we have found evidence of at least five Ali al-Omari is one of the most popular Islamic personalities in the young people who have been executed in the MBS Arab world – thanks in part to his own Youth Awareness channel. era for so-called crimes committed as children. arrests and detention”. All have been denied They are Abdulkareem al-Hawaj, Mojtaba al- proper access to a lawyer and a fair an open trial, He is the chairman of TV channel 4Shbab and a talk-show Suwaiket, Munir al-Adam, Saeed Mohammed and at least three of them have been tortured. personality. His television programmes have called for more rights al-Skafi and Salman al Qurraish. who were all for women, and campaigned against violent extremism45. put to death together alongside 34 other men in Unquestionably the death penalty is the ultimate a gruesome spectacle in April 2019 after being sanction. Yet, the incidents for which these four He faces at least 30 terrorism-related charges, including “forming convicted of offenses related to the attending of men are to be tried and potentially murdered by a terrorist youth organization,” and a potential death sentence. protests during the Arab Spring uprisings in Qatif. the state range from the minor to almost flippant. In prison he has been tortured, held in solitary confinement and denied access to a fair and open trial – there are reports that he has There are a further 13 young men facing death for Salman al-Odah is believed to be facing the death penalty for refusing to send a tweet in support of suffered burns and injuries all over his body as a result of electric crimes committed as minors such as attending a 46 41 shocks during solitary confinement for more than a year. funeral and sending text messages – all Shia from the leadership’s position on Qatar . Ali al-Omair the Qatif region, all related to political protests in faces death simply for calling for demonstrations42. 2011/12. Awad al-Qarni risks losing his life, for amongst other things ‘showing sympathy for other In addition, prosecutors are seeking the death detainees43 . Hassan Farhan al-Maliki faces the penalty against four leading Islamic thinkers in death penalty for his pronouncements on Islam Saudi Arabia – Ali al-Omari, Awad al-Qarni, Hassan and giving interviews to foreign journalists44. Farhan al-Maliki and Salman al-Odah. Following discussions with those close to some Each was arrested in MBS’ September Purge of these prisoners, Grant Liberty can report of 2017, which saw the arrest of more than 60 wide-spread suspicions that the trials are being political prisoners – most of whom were leading conducted under direction from the very top of clerics – in a single month. Their arrests span the Saudi state, and are seen by the regime as an just three days form the 9th – 11th of September. opportunity for the new crown prince to face down Following their arrests, a group of UN human rights some of the most popular religious figures in the experts deplored what they said was “a worrying Kingdom. pattern of widespread and systematic arbitrary

40 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 41 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 151 of 174

Hunger Strikes Case study: The ACPRA 7

The Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association was formed in 2009 in response to deteriorating human rights in the Kingdom – though its legitimacy and legality have never been accepted by the monarchy.

NUMBER OF CASES The group of activists and academics has campaigned for democratic reforms and laws to protect minority rights. In February 2018, 5 ACPRA members took part in a coordinated hunger strike in protest at their treatment in prison - Abdulkarim 14 al-Khodr, Abdullah al-Hamid, Abdulrahman al-Hamid, Fawzan al-Harbi and Mohammed Fahad al-Qahtani. The authorities’ Hunger Strike response was to place all five in solitary confinement. All remain 4% in prison. Hunger strikes are traditionally a rarity in Saudi of Prisoners Of Conscience society – not least because of cultural taboos around self-harm and suicide. In the years before MBS came to power we can find only two examples of hunger strikes in Saudi jails.

The first is Saud al-Hashimi. He one of the longest jail sentence of any prisoner of conscience in Saudi Arabia – 30 years and a 30-year ban on traveling. Abdulkarim al-Khodr Abdullah al-Hamid Abdulrahman al-Hamid He has been subjected to physical torture to coerce him into breaking his hunger strike.

The second is Mohammed al-Bajadi, who endured Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, was forced into a hunger 3 hunger strikes in 2012. It is widely believed that strike in the summer of 2020, Salman al-Odah he was released because of international support the cleric and activist, and at least 7 members for his hunger strikes and NGO / Media pressure on of ACRPA the Saudi Civil and Political Rights the Saudi Authorities. He was force fed during his Association. hunger strike. The prisoners have been pushed into hunger However, in the three years since the new Crown strikes in order to protest a range of abuses Fawzan al-Harbi Mohammed Fahad al-Qahtani Abdul aziz al-Shubaily Prince was appointed we have evidence of a including torture, enforced isolation from families marked increase in hunger strikes in Saudi jails. At and lawyers, arbitrary arrest, and various further least a further 12 prisoners have endured hunger human rights violations. Although some have strikes since MBS’ appointment. They include won limited changes to their condition, such as Loujain al-Hathloul, who began a hunger strike meetings with family members, the response of in August 2020 in order to force a meeting with the authorities has typically been further abuse, her family, and is currently on hunger strike at including prolonged solitary confinement and time of writing (October 2020). The humanitarian, forced feeding.

Essa al-Hamid

42 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 43 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 152 of 174

Solitary Confinement Case study: Murtaja Qureiris

Murtaja Qureiris was arrested as a 13-year-old for crimes he allegedly committed as a 10-year-old.

His crime was to lead 30 other children in a rudimentary protest NUMBER OF CASES march for human rights during the Arab Spring in 2011. He is believed to have spent a year and three months of his time in jail in solitary confinement, more than 5% of his life - he remains under 20 44 years old. 50

Solitary confinement 14% Prolonged solitary confinement is in itself a form of Prisoners Of Conscience of torture. In Saudi Arabian prisons prolonged solitary confinement – over a legal limit of 15 days – is against the law. Nevertheless, we know of at least 44 prisoners to have been held in prolonged solitary confinement – many indefinitely.

In Saudi prisons solitary confinement typically means sitting alone for 22 hours a day or more. Inevitably those held in prolonged solitary confinement are often held incommunicado and are therefore one of the hardest for family members, NGOs and lawyers to get to, however Psychological effects can include psychosis and reports have emerged of activists held in solitary depression, with a risk of leading to self-harm and confinement for over a year. even suicide, as well as a long-term degradation of cognitive ability and wider feelings of extreme Often combined with physical torture in Saudi mental duress. prisons – frequently resulting in prisoners requiring medical assistance48 – solitary confinement is widely accepted to have a profound impact on a victim’s health.

Physiological effects include symptoms similar to those of hypertension, such as chronic headaches, trembling, sweaty palms, extreme dizziness and heart palpitations, as well as digestive problems and a lack of appetite. 49

44 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 45 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 153 of 174

Arbitrary Detention

If Saudi authorities can hold a detainee for months on end with no NUMBER OF CASES charges, it’s clear that the Saudi criminal justice system remains broken and unjust, and it only seems to be getting worse.52 212 SARAH LEAH WHITSON, MIDDLE EAST DIRECTOR AT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Arbitrary arrest/ detention Saudi Arabia has a long and notorious record of 68% of Prisoners Of Conscience holding criminal suspects without charge or trial for months and years. In May 2018, for example, Human Rights Watch analysed information from Under investigation for more PRISONERS an online database on prisoners released by the than 6 months, without Saudi Ministry of Interior. referring them to a judge 2,305 They found over 2,300 people under arrest for more than 6 months without seeing a judge, the right to be brought promptly before a judge and almost 1,800 under arrest for over a year, after an arrest. Principle 11 of the “UN Body of 250 hadn’t seen in a judge three years after their Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Under investigation for more PRISONERS arrest51. A visual representation of the analysis of Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment” states than a year, without referring the number of prisoners being held without charge that the detainee shall have “a real opportunity to them to a judge 1,875 at the time of the report are shown in the graph make his statement as soon as possible before a overleaf. judicial or other authority” and that it must be in a judicial or other authority. Our analysis shows the picture with political PRISONERS prisoners is no different. 212 of the prisoners of Prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia have Under investigation for more 309 conscience we detail suffered arbitrary arrest. been arrested and forcibly rendered from foreign than 3 years, without referring The Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure stipulates countries, they have been held and extorted them to a judge 251 that individuals can be detained without charge for in palatial hotels and they have been brutally a maximum of 5 days, and detention is renewed captured and abused in front of the children. Very for a maximum of 6 months upon orders from the few have been given a clear legal basis for their Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution (currently arrest within reasonable timeframes and fewer the Public Prosecution Office). According to the still have had a reasonable chance to defend Case study: Walid Fathi aforementioned system, “Immediately after themselves in a court of law. that, [the detainee] must be transferred to the The Saudi-American doctor Walid Fathi was arrested in the competent court or released.” November 2017 Ritz Carlton affair.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has He was detained for more than 20 months without charge. In that found that detention is considered arbitrary when time he was extensively tortured – electrocuted and whipped – authorities fail to observe standards relating to the and denied family visits and phone calls. For long periods he was right to due process - in whole or in part - including blindfolded and handcuffed inside the prison. To this date, he still has no information about the crimes he was accused of.

46 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 47 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 154 of 174

CATEGORIES OF PRISONER 12 Women’s Rights Activists

NUMBER OF CASES

27 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Women's Rights Activists Jan Apr Sep Oct Jan May Jun Jul Apr Sep 2016 2017 2018 2019 Today, there are at least 12 female women’s rights 9% of Prisoners Of Conscience activists held in Saudi prisons. They are Nouf Abdulaziz al-Jeraiwi, Loujain al-Hathloul, Mayaa Women’s Rights Activists Arrests By Date al-Zahrani, Samar Badawi, Nassima al-Sadah, Israa

Al-Ghamgham, Maha Al-Rafidi, Khadija al-Harbi, Sexual Violence 6 Fatima Al-Nassif, Aisha al-Marzooq, Naima al- Solitary confinement 11 Matrood and Noor Al-Muslim. A further 12 females Observers denied access to court hearings 2 have been arrested and held in the MBS era. Enforced disappearance 6 Denied access to healthcare 1 Included in those we document are 3 male Torture and ill-treatment 10 Denied access to a lawyer 13 women’s rights activists, one has been released, 14 Denied contact with family one has been temporarily released, and one 13 9 Arbitrary arrest/ detention 26 12 remains in prison. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10 10 By far the majority of arrests, 19 were made in Counts Of Human Rights Violations Women’s Rights Activists 2018, largely in two tranches. First in May 2018, 8 12 activists were arrested and in July a second

6 series of arrests took place. Those imprisoned Case study: Loujain al-Hathloul have typically campaigned for an end to the male 4 4 guardianship law and women’s right to drive. Loujain al-Hathloul is a celebrated human rights activist and 2 former Nobel Prize nominee. She is primarily known for her iconic Despite reforms – including the granting of campaign for the right to drive. Loujain was arrested alongside other 0 women’s right to drive in September 2017 – In Prison Released Temporary Release activists in May 2018. campaigners have not been released. Those who remain in prison without trial have typically seen Along with several prominent Saudi women’s human rights their treatment deteriorate over time. A series defenders and activists, Loujain was arrested in May 2018. of trials expected in March 2020 – almost two Of the 27 women’s activists arrested, 13 remain full years after the May 2018 arrests – has been in prison, 10 are temporarily released on bail, Since her arrest in March 2018, Loujain has been subjected to delayed indefinitely, with the Saudi authorities and only 4 have been freed. threats of sexual assault, torture, prolonged solitary confinement citing the Coronavirus crisis. and enforced disappearance, and was recently forced into a hunger strike to secure access to her family, after being subjected to enforced disappearance. At time of writing (November 4 2020) Of those we document, 10 have been tortured, Loujain is on hunger strike in protest at the authorities’ refusal to 6 have been sexually assaulted, half have been allow her legally mandated regular contact with her family (who are denied access to a lawyer. acting as her legal counsel).

48 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 49 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 155 of 174

Minors We have seen further reports that at least two all been tried in secret, and in many cases, even further young men – minors at the time of their the prisoners themselves were not permitted to be supposed crimes – have been executed under MBS present. for political crimes, Saeed Mohammed al-Skafi and Salman al-Qurraish.57 The minors we detail are exclusively from the Executions are the latest act in the Saudi Arabian country’s Shia minority in the Qatif region. In A further 13 have been sentenced to death. They 2011/12 at the time of the Arab Spring, an uprising authorities’ ongoing persecution of the Shi’a minority. include Dawoud Hussain al-Marhoon who was in the region saw hundreds protest on the arrested after refusing to inform on attendees at streets against anti-shia discrimination. Human The death penalty is being deployed as a political a political protest. He was convicted following a Rights Watch, amongst others, have noted the confession induced by torture58. persistence of anti-Shia prejudice and practices weapon to punish them for daring to protest against their in the Kingdom, from hateful content in school treatment and to cow others into silence60 Others have been sentenced to up to 44 years for books to bans on public expression and of course crimes committed as children. the arrest – and execution - of political prisoners. Lynn Maalouf, Director for Research at Amnesty International’s Beirut office. The 20 prisoners we detail have been arrested and In April 2020 Saudi Arabia announced that charged with alleged crimes committed while they it would no longer use the death penalty for were minors, some as young as 9 years old, and those convicted of crimes committed as minors. some for crimes as absurd as attending a friend’s However, as noted above, the Kingdom has funeral. Murtaja Qureiris was arrested for sowing made demonstrably false assertions as the NUMBER OF CASES sedition – at the age of ten years old. killing of children. As such, until the prisoners we discuss above are released, we believe the Saudi More than half of those we detailed have been authorities have not earned the right to be judged tortured, 17 suffered arbitrary arrest and at least on their promises to the international community. 20 8 have endured prolonged solitary confinement. Many have been held years without charge - Minors Ahmad Al Hossan was held for eleven years before his trial began59. Those who have faced trial have 6% The Saudi state makes no allowances for age of Prisoners Of Conscience when it comes to persecuting even the mildest critics of the regime. We have found evidence of 20 young people arrested or held for acts committed Case study: Ali al-Nimr as minors. Incredibly, since King Salman came to power his government has executed 11 people Ali al-Nimr has been held for eight and a half years following his for crimes allegedly committed as children53. In arrest for attending a protest at the age of seventeen. For that crime, 2018, the Kingdom stated that it did not execute the Saudi authorities have sentenced him to death. children, the following year it executed six children54. They included Abdulkarim al-Hawaj Al-Nimr was arrested following the deliberate ramming of his who was beheaded because he sent Whatsapp motorcycle by a police car, which resulted in his hospitalisation and messages about a protest when he was 16. multiple broken bones. He has been repeatedly tortured whilst in prison following his conviction for, in the words of court documents Mojtaba al-Suwaiket was 17 years old when he was Munir al-Adam, also a teenager when he was ‘encouraging pro-democracy protests using a BlackBerry arrested at King Salman airport minutes before arrested, was executed alongside Abdulkarim smartphone’. The trial itself has been described as ‘deeply flawed’ a planed flight to the US to study at Michigan al-Hawaj, Mojtaba al-Suwaiket, after being held, by Amnesty International. University. Instead, he was held, forced into a beaten and refused legal counsel. He was beaten so confession under torture and eventually beheaded badly he became deaf in one ear56. In total 37 men His death penalty, along with those of fellow Shia activists , Abdullah in 2019 for the crime of attending pro-democracy were executed in a single barbaric spectacle al-Zaher and Dawood al-Marhoun, all arrested for crimes committed 61 protests55. as minors, is under review.

50 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 51 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 156 of 174

Journalists • Bader al-Ibrahim, Mohammed al-Sadiq, al-Ibrahim, a dual US/Saudi national is known Thumar al-Marzouqi, Abdullah al-Duhailan, to have been tortured and placed in prolonged Naif al-Hindas and Yazed al-Faifi – all arrested solitary confinement. on 4 April 2018, they have been denied access NUMBER OF CASES to a lawyer and family members – none have been charged, yet all remain in prison. Bader

54 Sexual Violence 2

Jamal Khashoggi, murdered two years ago, may Journalist Solitary confinement 8 be the highest profile victim of Mohammed bin 17% Salman’s crackdown on journalistic freedom, of Prisoners Of Conscience Observers denied access to court hearings 3 but he is far from alone. We detail 54 journalists, 46 arrested in the three years since MBS took control of the Kingdom, 22 in 2019 alone, of those Enforced disappearance 10 one is dead (and there are unconfirmed reports of a second, Turki al-Jasser, profiled below), 9 Denied access to healthcare 3 have been released, 2 are on temporary release awaiting sentencing, and the remaining 33 are in prison. Torture and ill-treatment 7

Saudi Arabia, which is ranked 172 out of 180 on 45 41 Denied access to a lawyer 20 the world press freedom index, has continued to 40 arrest journalists this year. Although information 35 emerges slowly from the Kingdom we know of Denied contact with family 13 30 at least one in 2020 - Aqel al-Bahili – as recently as April. The arrested journalists have typically 25 written about politics, human rights or corruption 20 Arbitrary arrest/ detention 49

15 and lean heavily on social media to engage with 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

the public. Few were high profile at the time 10 9

of their arrest – they were ordinary working 5 Counts Of Human Rights Violations 1 1 2 journalists arrested under a wider crackdown on 0 Journalists Deceased Facing Death In Prison Released Temporary Release free speech. Penalty In common with other prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia, journalists have suffered horrific Case study: Turki al-Jasser abuse in prison. 7 have been tortured, 8 have Turki al-Jasser has not been heard from since his arrest in March suffered prolonged solitary confinement. The • Eman Al Nafjan and Nouf Abdulaziz – women’s 2018. victims of this abuse include: rights activists arrested in 2018, they have both have been sexually assaulted in prison, Al-Jasser wrote about the status of women under Islam, the • Saleh al-Shehi a close ally of Jamal Kashoggi, Al-Nafian has been further brutalised ahead uprising in Egypt, the plight of the Palestinians, and Iran’s role who died on July 19 2020 immediately after of her temporary release; Abdulaziz has been in the region for the Saudi newspaper al-Taqrir. Authorities his release. He is believed to have contracted tortured with electroshocks and remains in suspended al-Taqrir in 2015 and in 2018 jailed its editor, Sultan coronavirus and to have been denied medical prison. treatment until it was too late. al-Jumairi. There are unconfirmed reports that he died in prison under torture in November 2018. 62

52 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 53 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 157 of 174

Human Rights Activists Solitary confinement 4

Observers denied access to court hearings 2 Human rights activists in Saudi Arabia are an endangered species. One by one they are vanishing – prosecuted, Enforced disappearance 4 jailed, intimidated into silence or forced into exile - highlighting the authorities’ zero tolerance approach to Denied access to healthcare 3

freedom of expression. Torture and ill-treatment 9 Lynn Maalouf, Director for Research at Amnesty International’s Beirut office. Denied access to a lawyer 13

NUMBER OF CASES Denied contact with family 12

Arbitrary arrest/ detention 39

44 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Human Rights Counts Of Human Rights Violations Activist Human Rights Activists Incredibly, since this statement was made, the 14% of Prisoners Of Conscience situation has got worse for human rights activists in Saudi Arabia. Activists have faced arbitrary arrest, torture, solitary confinement, and the denial of basic rights such as the right to see their lawyer or family members. Worse still, Abdullah al-Hamid, the former poet, professor and ACPRA

member, died in prison in April 2020 following the 45 denial of medical care. 40 39 Activists arrested in the MBS era include several Case study: Abdulrahman al-Sadhan 35 further ACPRA members, humanitarians, lawyers, students and bloggers. 30 Abdulrahman al-Sadhan is a humanitarian. Employed by the Red Crescent in Saudi Arabia, Abdulrahman was arrested in March 2018, 25 They have been arrested on the basis of their apparently for voicing peaceful opinions on social media. tweets, for attending rallies, membership of 20 pro-democracy groups, criticising the regime or Since his arrest he has been tortured, held in solitary confinement, 15 campaigning for reform. separated from his family and forced into hunger strikes. His family 10 are forced to rely on updates on his condition smuggled out of

5 3 prison by his fellow detainees. He was first able to communicate 1 1 with his family 23 months after his arrest. 0 Deceased Facing Death Penalty In Prison Released

54 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 55 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 158 of 174

Business Leaders

Enforced disappearance 1

NUMBER OF CASES 21 Torture and ill-treatment 1 Business Denied access to a lawyer 2 Person In the autumn of 2017 Saudi authorities made 7% a series of mass arrests ostensibly targeting of Prisoners Of Conscience corruption in the Kingdom. Notoriously, Denied contact with family 1 senior business people, government officials and members of the Saudi royal family were imprisoned inside the palatial Ritz-Carlton hotel. There are reports that up to 200 people were Arbitrary arrest/ detention 4 arrested. Human Rights Watch describes what happened next as extortion. 63 0 1 2 3 4 5 As HRW put it: An informed source with close 18 16 ties to six men held at the Ritz-Carlton between 16 Counts Of Human Rights Violations November 2017 and January 2018 told Human 14 Business Leaders Rights Watch that authorities extorted financial settlements from detainees through physical 12

coercion as well as freezing their bank accounts 10 and banning their relatives from travel abroad. He said that some detainees were forced to transfer 8

money held in bank accounts abroad into the 6 country so that Saudi authorities could seize it, 4 4 and that authorities only released some detainees after they signed IOUs pledging to pay specified 2 1 Case study: Saleh Kamil sums of money. 0 In Prison Released Temporary Release Many reportedly did make deals with the regime Saleh Kamil was the chairman and founder of the Dallah in return for their freedom. At least one, Walid al Baraka Group (DBHC), one of the Middle East’s largest Fitahi, is known to have been tortured before his conglomerates, chairman of the General Council for Islamic Banks Nasser bin Aqeel al-Tayyar – an entrepreneur and the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce. 2019 release – he was assaulted with a whip and with interests ranging from transport and tourism electric shocks. to retail and real estate, and architect and He was arrested by the Saudi authorities in the Ritz Carlton affair. engineering firm CEO Zuhair Fayez. At least four in November 2017 of those arrested In March 2017 he was listed by Forbes as a billionaire worth over remain in prison. They are, Abdulrahman Fakih, £2bn. Following the Ritz Carlton incident, he was removed from Mansour al-Balawi – widely believed to have the list. The collapse in his known wealth fits with briefings from been one of the richest people in Saudi Arabia, Saudi officials which suggests the crackdown has so far netted the Kingdom in excess of $100bn.

56 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 57 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 159 of 174

Artists

Solitary confinement 1

NUMBER OF CASES

Enforced disappearance 3

9 1 Torture and ill-treatment Artist

3% Denied access to a lawyer 3 As is common amongst repressive regimes of Prisoners Of Conscience through time and around the world, poets, musicians and artists have not been safe from attacks on free speech and free expression. Denied contact with family 3 We know of at least 9 artists held as prisoners of conscience in the MBS era. They include the poet Arbitrary arrest/ detention 8 and novelist Fawaz Al-Ghuslan who was arrested

in the 2017 September purge, the poet Ali al-Zaal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 – arrested on the strength of his tweets, he was in prison for 9 months before any proper legal process began - and the musician Rabee Hafez, profiled below. 6 Counts Of Human Rights Violations Artists Artistic expression is of course heavily censored in 5 5 Saudi Arabia, as well as the arrests documented here, the regime censors everything from Netflix to 4 4 newspapers. The Kingdom ranks as the CPJ’s 4th most censored country .64 3

1 Case study: Rabee Hafez

Rabee Hafez is a composer and singer, with a record of supporting

0 In Prison Released the Palestinian people both in his songs and in his activism.

Before his arrest, his last tweet was a song for “The heroes of Palestine” and the one before a retweet of Khaled Al-Alkami (also a prisoner) condemning the arrests of clerics and public figures.

Arrested in September 2017 and sentenced to three years, Hafez nevertheless remains in prison where he has endured prolonged solitary confinement and been denied access to either his family or a lawyer.

58 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 59 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 160 of 174

Religious Figures

Solitary confinement 8

NUMBER OF CASES Observers denied access to court hearings 4 46 Denied access to healthcare 5 Torture and ill-treatment 5 Religious Figures Denied access to a lawyer 15 As noted in the introductory chapters of this 15% report, although the Saudi state is an absolute of Prisoners Of Conscience monarchy it is not true to say that there are no Denied contact with family 9 other powers in the land. Religious figures in Saudi Arabia have always wielded a significant ability Arbitrary arrest/ detention 32 to influence the public and the politics of the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Kingdom.

On his ascent to the Crown, one of Mohammed Counts Of Human Rights Violations bin Salman’s first acts was to prepare for and carry Religious Figures 35 out his September purge. 27 religious figures were 33 arrested in September 2017 alone. The victims of that ‘September Purge’ – 63 in all – have been 30 tortured, held in prolonged solitary confinement,

25 denied urgent health care, and as noted above, Case study: Salman al-Odah four of the religious leaders arrested that month

20 today face the death penalty. Just two have been An iconic religious reformer and one of Saudi Arabia’s leading permanently released. proponents of political reform and human rights. He is a prominent 15 In moving decisively against leading religious media figure who boasts more than 14 million followers on Twitter. figures in the Kingdom – many whose social 10 9 In 2011 he was a lead signatory in the petition: ‘Towards a State media footprints are counted in the millions – the of Rights and Institutions’65 . Its demands included an elected 5 4 MBS regime further cementing its grip on power parliament with real powers and the appointment of a prime structures within Saudi Arabia. The deliberate minister distinct from the king and accountable to the parliament as targeting of high-profile figures is an unmistakable 0 Facing Death Penalty In Prison Released well as an independent judiciary. show of strength. Salman al-Odah has frequently been arrested, and held by the The charges faced by religious figures arrested women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul. Where Saudi state, beginning in 1994. Most recently, he was arrested in by the regime range across the piece, essentially the Saudis have evidence of extremist intent they 2017, from which he continues to be held awaiting trial. In making boiling down to ‘too liberal’, ‘too conservative or should try the accused in open court based on the the arrest, security officers made clear that the reason for his arrest extreme’, or simply a different interpretation of evidence. was a Twitter post in which he had welcomed a phone conversation scripture. It is important to note that the Saudi between the Emir of Qatar and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as regime frequently uses accusations of terrorism a step towards resolving the current Gulf crisis. In the tweet he said: in order to smear political opponents such as the “Praise the Lord… O God, soften their hearts toward each other for the good of their peoples.”

60 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 61 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 161 of 174

Government Officials

Enforced disappearance 3

NUMBER OF CASES 26 Torture and ill-treatment 1 Government Denied access to a lawyer 2 official The powerful and influential figures arrested in 8% November 2017 included several government of Prisoners Of Conscience officials who had fallen foul of the MBS regime. Denied contact with family 2 Among those arrested were the former Director of the ‘anti-extortion crimes unit’, former ministers and mayors, military experts, royal household officials and judges. Most of those arrested have Arbitrary arrest/ detention 9 been released without charge however eight remain in prison including Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammad al-Sultan, a former commander of the 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 Royal Saudi Navy.

14 In addition, government workers aren’t immune Counts Of Human Rights Violations

to the sort of arbitrary arrests that sees innocent 12 Government Officials people incarcerated for the mildest criticism of 10 public administration. In 2020, Hezam Al Ahmari, 10 a government employee at Jeddah seaport, was

arrested by the secret police three days after he 8 posted a TikTok video criticising the proximity of

a nightclub to his house and the local mosque. In 6 the video, al-Ahmari linked his criticism to Vision Case study: Adel Fakih 2030. Since his arrest his family, however, has 4 The Ritz Carlton arrests included the detention of four former not been able to confirm his location as he has ministers including former planning minister Adel Fakih. been denied any contact or visits from his family 2 1 lawyer.66 Adel Al Fakih was removed as minister of economy and planning on

0 Deceased In Prison Released the eve of the November 2017 arrests, and activists believe that the arrest of Dr. Walid Fitaihi, the founder and CEO of the International Medical Centre in Jeddah, who is related to Fakih by marriage, is connected to his arrest.

Fakih, along with the majority of those arrested with him was released shortly after his arrest. Many of those released agreed a financial settlement with the regime. Saudi Arabian officials say the anti-corruption campaign has netted more than $106 billion (Dh389 billion, 400 billion riyal) in financial settlements.

62 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 63 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 162 of 174

Academics Solitary confinement 5

Observers denied access to court hearings 2 NUMBER OF CASES 37 Enforced disappearance 6 Denied access to healthcare 1 Academic 12% Torture and ill-treatment 4 One of the least understood and documented of Prisoners Of Conscience categories of political prisoner in Saudi Arabia are the academics. There is an undeniable lack Denied access to a lawyer 9 of free expression and free thought on Saudi campuses. The US State Department notes that academics reportedly practiced self-censorship, Denied contact with family 9 and authorities prohibited professors and administrators at public universities from hosting 35 meetings at their universities with foreign Arbitrary arrest/ detention 26 academics or diplomats without prior government 31 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 permission. 67 30 Counts Of Human Rights Violations We have found evidence of 37 academics held 25 Academics as prisoners of conscience in the Kingdom (26 arrested in 2017 alone). Of those, 26 suffered arbitrary detention, 9 have been denied access to 20 their families, 4 have been tortured, and 5 held in prolonged solitary confinement. 15 Those arrested include Razin Mohammed al- 10 Razin, Chairman of the Executive Council of the Consumer Protection Association, Professor of Hisbah and Control, and a member of the faculty 5 4 at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University. 1 1 Case study: Abdul Rahman al-Shumayri 0 He is believed to have been arrested because of Deceased In Prison Released Temporary Release his objection price hikes for medication. Abdul Rahman al-Shumayri is accused of seeking to establish his own political party. For this crime he has been sentenced to 15 years Abdullah al-Maliki is a prominent reformist in prison and a 15-year travel ban. He has been tortured and denied academic and writer known for his support for the people” and has repeatedly spoken out against access to his family and a lawyer. In 2013, Amnesty International human rights. Before his arrest, his last tweet read, the normalisation of relationships with Israel. said he had been ‘imprisoned solely on the basis of [his] peaceful “Whatever the form of the political system that activism’. Seven years on, he remains in prison68. you propose and believe in; There is nothing more dangerous or worse than the will of one man over

64 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 65 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 163 of 174

Family Members Solitary confinement 3

Observers denied access to court hearings 2

NUMBER OF CASES Enforced disappearance 1 21 Denied access to healthcare 4 Family Torture and ill-treatment 3 Member 7% Denied access to a lawyer 6 One of the most insidious and disturbing habits of Prisoners Of Conscience of the Saudi security forces is the arrest of family members of political prisoners. They have been Denied contact with family 1 arrested for as little as showing support for their loved ones, or simply through association. They have been tortured, held in solitary confinement, Arbitrary arrest/ detention 10 and held without access to their families or lawyers. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20 They include Aida al-Ghamdi, mother of the 18 Counts Of Human Rights Violations activist Abdullah al-Ghamidi who lives in exile, 18 Family Members and two of his brothers, Sultan and Adel. Khaled al-Odah, the brother of Salman al-Odah, appears 16 to have been arrested simply for tweeting the fact 14 Case study: Aida al-Ghamdi that his brother had been arrested. Three sons and the brother of Safar Al-Hawali, as well as his 12 Aida al-Ghamdi and her youngest son Adel were arrested and secretary, faced arrest in July 2018 and remain in brutalised by Saudi authorities in March 2018. Aida’s son, Abdullah prison. 10 al-Ghamidi is a human rights activist granted political asylum in the UK in 2012. He has written movingly about his mother’s condition We have evidence of at least 21 prisoners arrested 8 due to their association with targets of the regime. for Euronews. He writes: Of those, 16% have never been charged and just 6 “the circumstances of their arrest makes it clear that my activism two have been released. was the cause. On the same day as their arrest, my house in the city 4 3 of Dammam, about 1200km from Jeddah, was raided by a large

2 armed force. My other brother, Sultan Al-Ghamdi was then also arrested without a warrant of any kind.

0 In Prison Released “My mother and brother were tortured in front of each other after they were arrested. They were severely beaten and cigarettes were extinguished on their skin. They were all kept in solitary confinement for extended periods of time. My brother was forced to record a video denouncing me and my activism. The video was widely shared on social media by official Saudi channels. I was then told that any contact with my family members would endanger their lives further.” 69

66 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 67 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 164 of 174

Royals Case study: Turki Bin Abdullah

Turki Bin Abdullah, son of King Abdullah, was arrested as part of the Ritz Carlton crackdown along with members of his entourage. NUMBER OF CASES NBC reports that detainees were coerced, abused and tortured, including deprived of sleep, beaten and interrogated with their heads covered. Seventeen were hospitalized, according to the 12 New York Times. Major General Ali al-Qahtani, a senior aide to Bin Abdullah, and Royal Family former aide to his father, died in custody. The Saudi authorities have yet to offer an official explanation in the case. Today, Turki The Ritz-Carlton arrests of November 2017 4% of Prisoners Of Conscience Bin Abdullah remains in prison – his whereabouts and condition represented a brutal assertion of political power unknown. by the then new Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Many of those targeted were connected to his father’s predecessor as King, King Abdullah. Some of those imprisoned were his sons, their arrests signifying the crushing of a rival powerbase at the top of Saudi society. Of those arrested in November 2017, at least two remain in prison. They are Prince Abdulaziz bin 8 Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud and Prince Turki 7 bin Abdullah. 7

Two months later, the second tranche of arrests 6 saw Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman Al 5 Saud, Prince Fahd bin Abdullah bin Mohammad Al 5 Saud detained, who also remain in prison.

4 Very little is known of the four royals who remain in prison, despite efforts by NGOs in August of this year – led by MENA Rights Group and ALQST 3 – to force the regime to disclose details of their condition through the submission of a request 2 for an opinion to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). 1

0 In Prison Released

The Ritz-Carlton Riyadh that was used as a jail November 5th, 2017

68 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 69 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 165 of 174

Major General Ali al-Qahtani

Major General Ali al-Qahtani died in custody during the notorious Ritz Carlton incident in November 2017. Al-Qahtani was a senior Died In Custody aide to King Abdullah – King Salman’s predecessor who died in 2015, and then his son Turki. The circumstances of the Major General’s death are not well known, however leaks from inside NUMBER OF CASES the Ritz Carlton suggest the more than 200 detainees – all held without charge within the hotel after a wave of arrests of political rivals of MBS and his wider team – were beaten and abused by their captors. Reports suggest al-Qahtani ‘may have been tortured to death’. Sources told the New York Times that the general’s “neck was 4 71 It is a tragic inevitability that with so many prisoners of conscience treated so badly – beaten, abused, twisted unnaturally as though it had been broken.” sexually assaulted, psychologically tortured and denied medical assistance – that there will be deaths in custody or in the days immediately following the release of a prisoner. It is impossible to know how many of those whose whereabouts remain unknown are still alive. We do however know of at least four who have died in custody (or in the days after release from terminal illness brought on in prison) – they are profiled below: Case study: Abdullah al-Hamid

Abdullah al-Hamid is a former poet, professor and founder member of ACPRA (The Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association) who campaigned for human rights throughout his life. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison in March 2011. Whilst incarcerated, al-Hamid suffered chronic ill-health. An urgent procedure on his heart was Case study: Saleh al-Shehi repeatedly delayed until he eventually suffered a stroke on April 9, 2020, which caused his death two weeks later. In June 2020 several Saleh al-Shehi died on July 19 2020 immediately after his release. UN Special Procedures mandate holders issue a letter of allegation He is believed to have contracted coronavirus and to have been (AL SAU 8/2020) expressing concern that the delay to Al Hamid’s denied medical treatment until it was too late. Arrested on 3 medical treatment may have arbitrarily deprived him of his right to January 2019, he worked under murdered Saudi journalist Jamal life72. Khashoggi during the latter’s tenure as editor of Al-Watan. In February 2018, al-Shehi was sentenced to five years in prison for “insulting the royal court” after a TV appearance criticizing corruption in the Kingdom. Al-Shehi was a close ally of Jamal Khashoggi, who had campaigned for reform in the Kingdom and an end to political and financial corruption. 70 Case study: Ahmad Al-Ammari Ahmad Al-Ammari, is a former dean of the Quran Faculty in the Islamic University of Medina. He was first detained in September 2018 and died in custody in January 2019. Al-Hawali was arrested shortly after he published a 3,000-page book which included criticism of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman73. It is believed that al-Ammari died following a severe brain haemorrhage in early January 2019. While some campaigners have suggested medical negligence, ALQST Director Yahya Assiri has argued his death, “is a case of murder in custody.” 74

70 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 71 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 166 of 174

PART THREE: ACTIVISM

In the chapters above we have detailed the injustice, abuse and torment facing prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia under Mohammed Bin Salman. But we do not believe this is the end of the story.

As we set out earlier in this report, the Saudi regime under MBS faces an uncertain future. As the world transitions away from fossil fuels, so in turn the Kingdom is seeking to transition its economy away from its own reliance on oil. To do this, the current regime has begun an unprecedented PR campaign. By definition, that means the Saudi regime is sensitive to its global reputation which in turn provides an unprecedented opportunity to force progressive change in the Kingdom. In recent years we have seen public pressure yield results.

External pressure works

“There is a variety of views. Some people say it doesn’t matter what other people think of us, what is important is to do what is right for our country, and if people knowingly break our laws they should be punished according to those laws. Other people say it isn’t worth it, let them out, let them live their lives and ignore them.”

These words should of course be taken with a pinch of salt but they do clearly suggest that there are actors within government who are sensitive to political and media pressure. Indeed, although the specific causation of any specific action of the Saudi government is hard to divine, there are numerous episodes from the release of prisoners to the end to particular abuses that have been widely attributed to external pressure. As this report goes to press, the Saudi Ambassador to the UK has discussed the case for clemency for prisoners of conscience in the Kingdom. His words are worth printing in full. “People ask: is it worth the damage it is causing you, whatever they did? That is a fair argument to make and it is a discussion we have back at home within our political system and within our ministry. This is my country, I write for the people, my cause is the people, I write on behalf of the people.

SALEH ALSHEHI, SAUDI JOURNALIST AND WRITER (1976 - 2020)

72 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 73 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 167 of 174

Nevertheless Zara’s stand is to be applauded and marks another essential plank in the global battle for human rights in Saudi Arabia.

The US-based NGO Freedom Forward, together with a coalition of other organisations have successfully campaigned to secure 45 members of congress calling on The outgoing secretary of state to drop out of the G20 summit, 413 members of parliament have passed a resolution to downgrade EU representation at the summit, and al-Hathloul wrote to the leading players on the 20 UK MPs calling on the British government to Ladies European Tour begging them to boycott the reconsider its participation. 78 event.

Outside the G20 process, like many other oppressive regimes in recent years, the Saudi public relations campaign has sought to benefit from an association with popular sport – commonly referred to as ‘sports-washing’.

G20 AND BEYOND In the first half of 2020, the Saudi Public Investment Fund – the regime’s sovereign wealth fund, therefore effectively controlled by the Given evidence that the Saudi regime is at least in part susceptible Crown Prince as his team – sought to engineer the purchase of Newcastle United Football Club, one to external political and media pressure, it therefore follows that of the best supported clubs in the richest and most human rights activists around the world are not powerless. Instead we popular sporting league in the world, the English believe coordinated action can help free prisoners of conscience in the Premier League. Grant Liberty, alongside other groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Kingdom. International and Fair Square, campaigned vigorously against the sale. Ultimately, the sale fell through, not least because of a commercial dispute between the Saudi regime and the Premier League relating to broadcasting rights79 , Direct Action At time of writing, in the coming weeks Saudi but the clear intention to use the world game to Arabia is expected to host the G20 from Riyadh. In September this year, Freedom Forward led a coalition of global human rights groups including ALQST, increase the Kingdom’s soft power was clear. The ongoing Coronavirus will rob the regime of the MENA Rights Group and Action Corps in a coordinated call for city leaders to boycott the U20 event – part sorts of pictures they will have expected when they In a similar vein, Saudi Arabia announced its of the wider G20 process75 . That work, combined with media pressure, led to three major city leaders – took on the presidency of the G20. Nevertheless first women’s golf events – part of the Ladies the Mayors of New York, Los Angeles and London, announcing boycotts of the event 76. The G20 Process is the event marks a seminal moment in the MBS European Tour, in March. The leading Brit on undeniably a major plank in the Saudi PR campaign – public relations disasters like coordinated boycotts regime. World leaders are left with a binary choice the tour, Meghan Maclaren withdrew from the by world leaders put a serious dent in that strategy. If the regime sees that potential PR successes turn – either attend and become complicit in the event, stating clearly a refusal to be complicit in into defeats because the world as one refuses to give even tacit approval to the Kingdom, but instead human rights abuses in the Kingdom, or take a the regime’s attempts at sportswashing80 . The publicly condemns its human rights record, as these three leaders have done, then the regime will be stand. The European Parliament has urged the EU events were initially delayed due to Coronavirus, forced to change course. to snub the summit81 , and Grant Liberty is part of a however, at time of writing the Aramco Saudi global coalition of activists calling on government Similarly, the popular journalist Zarha Hankir publicly refused to compère the W20 event77 – the stream Ladies International and the Saudi Ladies Team to boycott the event. As a minimum, governments of the G20 process focussed on women. In many senses, of course, it is a wonder that anyone could International were due to take place between the should insist on the release of prisoners of attend such an event – albeit in the age of Covid, virtually – while Loujain al-Hathloul, Nassima al-Sada, 12 and 19th of November. As part of the global conscience as the price for their attendance. and ``other campaigners languish in prison, tortured and abused for campaigning for women’s rights. campaign against Saudi sportswashing Lina

74 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 75 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 168 of 174

Nothing is set in stone. Contacts

Grant Liberty Forgotten Women 20-22 Wenlock Road X and Why Building London, N1 7GU 20-30 Whitechapel Road United Kingdom, London, E1 1EW As this report goes to press, Donald Trump – MBS’s most significant www. grantliberty.org United Kingdom, international ally – is reluctantly preparing to leave the White Email: [email protected] www.forgottenwomen.org Email: [email protected] House. His successor – Joe Biden has talked about the Saudi regime in a completely different way – he has described the Kingdom as a pariah, pledging an end to the Trump-era ‘blank cheque’ in the face of human rights abuses.

www.GrantLiberty.org In this new global order, MBS’ Vision 2030 looks increasingly precarious, and as we have seen, we know actors within the regime are at least acknowledging pressure from the international community to release of prisoners of conscience. So the lesson to activists is clear - now is the time to redouble our efforts. Saudi Arabia cannot succeed in a post-oil economy if it remains a pariah. The Kingdom’s rulers are by necessity more susceptible to political lobbying than ever before. If activists keep campaigning, if we keep showcasing the stories and the voices of the victims of this regime, if we keep lobbying our own governments and those around the world, change can come. For MBS and the Saudi regime our message is clear - a wave of change is coming. Now is the time to do the right thing. Your economy, your national strategy and your regime will not survive growing international disgust at the abuses you inflict on your own people. Acting now is in your own interests. Free your prisoners of conscience before that wave destroys your entire government.

76 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 GRANT LIBERTY 2020/21 77 Grant Liberty report- December 2020 Page 169 of 174

48 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/31/leaked-reports-reveal-abuse-saudi-arabia-political-prisoners

Endnotes 49 https://wp.nyu.edu/steinhardt-appsych_opus/effects-of-solitary-confinement-on-the-well-being-of-prison-inmates/

50 https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/06/middleeast/saudi-teen-death-penalty-intl/

51 https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/06/saudi-arabia-thousands-held-arbitrarily

52 https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/06/saudi-arabia-thousands-held-arbitrarily 1 https://vision2030.gov.sa/en 53 https://www.esohr.org/en/?p=2974 2 https://rsf.org/en/saudi-arabia 54 https://www.adhrb.org/2020/10/saudi-arabia-fails-to-deliver-on-promises-to-abolish-death-penalty-against-children/ 3 https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new 55 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/02/executed-saudi-student-was-allegedly-convicted-basis-confession-obtained-under 4 https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/saudi-arabia 56 https://www.adhrb.org/2019/04/profiles-persecution-munir-al-adam/ 5 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAUDI-ARABIA-2018.pdf 57 https://www.esohr.org/en/?p=2196 6 https://indicators.ohchr.org/ 58 https://reprieve.org.uk/death-penalty-around-world/the-countries/spotlight-on-saudi-arabia/ 7 https://www.esohr.org/en/?p=2974 59 https://www.menarights.org/en/caseprofile/ahmad-al-hossan-arrested-minor-denied-due-process-guarantees-and-sentenced-44-years 8 https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/11/04/high-cost-change/repression-under-saudi-crown-prince-tarnishes-reforms 60 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/07/saudi-arabia-death-penalty-used-as-political-weapon-against-shia-as-executions-spike-across-country/ 9 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAUDI-ARABIA-2018.pdf 61 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/08/saudi-arabia-review-of-young-mens-death-sentences-overdue-step-towards-justice/ 10 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/05/21/saudi-arabias-reformers-now-face-a-terrible-choice/ 62 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181105-saudi-journalist-tortured-to-death-in-prison/ 11 https://twitter.com/zahrahankir/status/1303643438198460416 63 https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/11/04/high-cost-change/repression-under-saudi-crown-prince-tarnishes-reforms 12 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/sadiq-khan-urged-to-boycott-saudi-hosted-g20-mayors-summit-u20-jamal-khashoggis 64 https://cpj.org/reports/2019/09/10-most-censored-eritrea-north-korea-turkmenistan-journalist/ 13 https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/9/30/london-mayor-boycotts-g20-in-stance-against-saudi-arabia 65 https://mepc.org/saudi-arabia-civil-rights-and-local-actors 14 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53598846 66 https://menarights.org/en/caseprofile/saudi-citizen-arbitrarily-detained-criticizing-vision-2030-tiktok 15 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/2020/01/28/meghanmaclaren-withdraws-saudi-ladies-championship-due-sportswashing/ 67 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAUDI-ARABIA-2018.pdf 16 https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliament-urges-eu-to-snub-saudi-g20-summit/a-55206586 68 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/01/saudi-arabia-remove-conditions-on-royal-pardon-of-reformists/ 17 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201110-after-cosy-ties-with-trump-saudi-arabia-faces-biden-pariah-pledge 69 https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/19/saudi-arabia-is-deliberately-denying-prisoners-medical-aid-how-long-will-europe-view 18 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Saudi_Arabia_2005.pdf 70 https://freedomforward.org/2020/07/27/remembering-saleh-al-shehi/ 19 https://www.arab-reform.net/publication/the-municipal-elections-in-saudi-arabia-2005/ 71 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-corruption-mohammed-bin-salman.html 20 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20986428 72 https://menarights.org/en/caseprofile/acpra-co-founder-abdullah-al-hamid-arbitrarily-detained-march-2013 21 https://globalvoices.org/2007/12/27/arab-bloggers-alarmed-by-al-farhans-arrest/ 73 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/21/prominent-saudi-scholar-ahmed-al-amari-dies-in-prison-activists 22 https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/case-history-raif-badawi 74 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/21/prominent-saudi-scholar-ahmed-al-amari-dies-in-prison-activists 23 https://www.amnesty.org.uk/saudi-arabia-free-human-rights-lawyer-waleed-abulkhair-abu-al-khair 75 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/sadiq-khan-urged-to-boycott-saudi-hosted-g20-mayors-summit-u20-jamal-khashoggis 24 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/03/saudi-arabia-journalist-sentenced-to-five-years-in-prison-for-tweets-latest-victim-of-ruthless-crackdown/ 76 https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/9/30/london-mayor-boycotts-g20-in-stance-against-saudi-arabia 25 https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/543ccd184.pdf 77 https://twitter.com/zahrahankir/status/1303643438198460416 26 https://vision2030.gov.sa/en 78 https://freedomforward.org/2020/11/16/boycotting-the-saudi-g20-our-successes/ 27 https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/18/saudi-arabia-repression-overshadows-womens-reforms 79 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53598846 28 https://rsf.org/en/saudi-arabia 80 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/2020/01/28/meghanmaclaren-withdraws-saudi-ladies-championship-due-sportswashing/ 29 https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new 81 https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliament-urges-eu-to-snub-saudi-g20-summit/a-55206586 30 https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/saudi-arabia

31 https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/

32 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAUDI-ARABIA-2018.pdf

33 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/09/18/saudi-arabia-wasnt-always-this-repressive-now-its-unbearable/

34 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAUDI-ARABIA-2018.pdf

35 https://indicators.ohchr.org/

36 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SAUDI-ARABIA-2018.pdf

37 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2019/06/07/torture-in-saudi-prisons-most-oppressive-era-we-have-witnessed/

38 Summary Record of the 21st meeting, U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n Hum. Rts, 48th Sess., ¶ 35, U.N. Doc. E/ CN.4/1992/SR.21 (1992).

39 https://pen.org/2019-freedom-to-write-award/

40 https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567677/loujain-al-hathloul/

41 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/1/7/cleric-salman-al-awda-held-over-qatar-tweet

42 https://www.esohr.org/en/?p=2596

43 http://menarights.org/en/caseprofile/saudi-islamic-scholar-awad-al-qarni-risk-execution

44 https://www.esohr.org/en/?p=2169

45 https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-seeks-death-penalty-cleric-ali-al-omari

46 ttps://www.aljazeera.com/features/2019/06/07/torture-in-saudi-prisons-most-oppressive-era-we-have-witnessed/

47 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200303-saudi-arabia-seeks-execution-of-5-men-arrested-as-children/ Grant Liberty report- December Page 170 of 174 2020

www.GrantLiberty.org MENA Rights Group Page 171 of 174

is a 38- ( سلمان بن عبدالعزيز بن سلمان السعود) Mr Salman Bin Abdulaziz Bin Salman Al Saud year-old Saudi national (born on 11 January 1982). He is also known as Salman Ghazalan. Mr Salman Al Saud is a member of the Saudi royal family and holds a doctorate in Law from Paris-Sorbonne University (Paris-IV). He has been involved in diplomatic activities, which allowed him to build connections with foreign leaders and diplomats.1 He is the cousin of the Saudi crown prince, Mr Mohamad bin Salman. is a 61- (عبدالعزيز بن سلمان بن محمد السعود) Abbdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud year-old Saudi national (born on 24 August 1959) and a member of the Saudi royal family. He is the father of Mr Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

Current situation

Messrs Salman Al Saud and Abdulaziz Al Saud are currently under house arrest in Riyadh. They were arrested in January 2018, and were first detained at Al Ha’ir prison, in solitary confinement. After a year at Al Ha’ir, they were then placed under house arrest, with heavy surveillance, at a villa in Riyadh which belongs to the Saudi authorities. Messrs Salman and Abdulaziz Al Saud have not been informed of the reasons for their arrests, nor have they been presented to a judicial authority nor informed of the charges brought against them.

1 Middle East Monitor, “Exclusive: Macron intervenes in case of detained Saudi Prnce.” (12 November 2018) < https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181112-exclusive-family-of-two-detained-saudi-princes- worried-about-their-fate-and-macron-intervenes/> (accessed on 24 August 2020). See also the following video:“La cérémonie de Prince Salman Ben Abdulaziz au Senat Francais,” available at: https://bit.ly/2YupH0E (accessed on 24 August 2020). MENA Rights Group Page 172 of 174

1 Statement of the case

1.1 Background

After King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud died in 2015 and King Salman acceded to the throne, Mohamad bin Salman (MBS) was appointed crown prince of the Kingdom in June of 2017.2 Three months later, the Saudi authorities cracked down on individuals perceived to be opponents of the crown prince. 3 By January 2019, more than 380 individuals, including intellectuals, clerics, human rights defenders, and members of the royal family, had been arrested, and many of them continue to be detained without charge.4

1.2 The arrest of Mr Salman Al Saud

On 4 January 2018, Mr Salman Al Saud, the cousin of the Saudi crown prince, was asked to report to the Saudi royal palace, where around 30 other members of the royal family had gathered. The members of the royal family, who were initially present at the royal palace, went there in order to enquire about the reasons behind the arrest of Turki Bin Mohammad Bin Saud Al Kabeer, another member of the royal family and a close relative of those present.

After arriving to the palace at around 4 am, Mr Al Saud and other members of the royal family were beaten by a group of 20 guards, in the presence of Saud Al Qahtani, a close adviser of the crown prince who ordered the beatings.5

Mr Al Saud was arrested alongside ten other member of the royal family, although all of them were released a few months later. Due to his injuries from the physical beatings, Mr Al Saud was no longer able to walk and had to be transferred to a hospital located within the Ritz Carlton hotel in Riyadh, where he remained for two weeks.

2 BBC, “Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, power behind the throne”, 22 October 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40354415 (accessed on 18 August 2020). 3 Ibidem. 4 Tim Lister, “The case of a Saudi prince illustrates a pattern of arbitrary detention.”, 12 April 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/13/middleeast/saudi-prince-arbitrary-detention-intl/index.html (accessed on 18 August 2020). 5 Ibidem.

2 MENA Rights Group Page 173 of 174

1.3 The arrest of Mr Abdulaziz Al Saud

On 5 January, at 8.30 pm, around 50 police officers raided the house of Mr Salman Al Saud’s father, Mr Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud, who was not there at the time. They broke all the cameras in the house as they waited for Mr Abdulaziz to return home. When he came back an hour later, they immediately arrested him and took him away. The officers were heavily armed and were wearing masks covering their faces.

1.4 No arrest warrants or charges

At the time of their arrest, neither Mr Salman Al Saud, nor his father Mr Abdulaziz Al Saud, were presented with arrest warrants or given reasons for their arrests. Media reports indicated that Mr Salman Al Saud was arrested due to the crown prince’s feelings of resentment towards him, as Mr Salman Al Saud is well-known and respected.6

Although two and a half years have elapsed since their arrest, no charges have been brought against Messrs Salman and Abdulaziz Al Saud. They were never interrogated by a law enforcement authority about any criminal offense.

1.5 Secret detention in Al Ha’ir prison

After spending two weeks in the hospital, Mr Salman Al Saud was transferred to Al Ha’ir prison in Riyadh. His father was immediately transferred there after his arrest on 5 January 2020. They were both detained incommunicado during the first seven months, after which they were able to contact their family for the first time. Despite their family’s attempts to locate them, the authorities never acknowledged that they were held in Al Ha’ir. In addition, Messrs Salman and Abdulaziz Al Saud were placed in solitary confinement throughout their detention in Al Ha’ir.

1.6 House arrest

In mid-January 2019, after spending over 12 months in Al Ha’ir prison, Mr Salman Al Saud and his father were transferred to a villa in Riyadh, where they were placed under house arrest under high security surveillance. The villa belongs to the Saudi authorities

6 Armin Arefi, Arabie Saudite : le prince Salmane, trop brillant pour MBS, Le Point, 14 March 2020, https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/arabie-Saudite-le-prince-salmane-trop-brillant-pour-mbs-14-03-2020- 2367114_24.php (accessed on 18 August 2020).

3 MENA Rights Group Page 174 of 174

and is constantly guarded by at least ten members of the National Guard, the Saudi Police, and the Royal Guard.

On 27 March 2020, Mr Salman Al Saud was taken from the villa and transferred to an unknown location for two months, after which he was returned back to the same villa. It is still unknown where Mr Salman Al Saud was taken and for what reasons.

To date, both remain held under house arrest.

NB: on 28 November 2020, Mr Salman Al Saud and his father were taken away from the villa to an unknown location. To date, their family remain unaware of their fate and whereabouts.

1.7 Letters sent to Saudi authorities

After the arrest of Mr Salman Al Saud and his father, several members of the European Parliament sent letters to the Saudi authorities expressing concern over Mr Salman Al Saud’s arrest. The Chair of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights sent a letter to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, expressing concern over the conditions surrounding the detention of Messrs Salman and Abdulaziz Al Saud and asking for their release.

The French authorities have also been informed of Mr Salman Al Saud’s arrest and detention. In a letter dated 20 April 2018 sent to Mr Salman Al Saud’s lawyer, the French presidency explained that his case will be transmitted to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. To date however, the French authorities and the European Parliament’s diplomatic efforts to secure the release of Mr Salman Al Saud and his father yielded no result.7

7 Ibidem.