April, 27 2012, 08:55am EDT
Saudi Arabia: Abolish Terrorism Court
Court Tries Peaceful Reformers, Critics in Unfair Proceedings
BEIRUT
Saudi Arabia should abolish the Specialized Criminal Court, set up in 2008 to try terrorism cases, but increasingly used to try peaceful dissidents and rights activists on politicized charges and in proceedings that violate the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said today. In April, it sentenced two people to prison for their peaceful activism, and the trials of at least four others are ongoing, in violation of their rights to freedom of expression.
"Trying Saudi political activists as terrorists merely because they question abuses of government power demonstrates the lengths the Saudi government will go to suppress dissent," said Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The trial of peaceful reformers in a terrorism court underlines the political nature of this court."
The charges against the rights activist and the dissident do not allege that they used or propagated violence.
On April 10, 2012, Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif sentenced Muhammad al-Bajadi to four years in prison and banned him from foreign travel for another five years. The court charged al-Bajadi, who has been on a hunger strike since March 11, with unlawfully establishing a human rights organization; distorting the state's reputation in media; impugning judicial independence; instigating relatives of political detainees to demonstrate and protest; and possessing censored books.
On April 11, 2012, the court also sentenced Yusuf al-Ahmad, an academic and cleric, to five months in prison for "incitement against the ruler, stoking divisions, harming the national fabric, diminishing the prestige of the state and its security and judicial institutions, and producing, storing, and publishing on the internet things that can disturb public order."
On July 7, al-Ahmad published a video on his Twitter account in which he called on King Abdullah to release arbitrarily detained persons. Security forces arrested him the next day. Domestic intelligence agents arrested al-Bajadi on March 20, when several dozen families of detainees had gathered in front of the Interior Ministry in Riyadh to press officials for the release of their relatives, some of whom had been detained for seven or more years without trial. Al-Bajadi is a founding member of the Saudi Association for Civil and Political Rights (ACPRA), which the government has not licensed.
On February 22, 2012, the Specialized Criminal Court began the trial of Khalid al-Juhani, who spoke to international journalists on the designated Saudi Day of Rage of March 11, 2011, to which only a handful of protesters showed up, in part because of heavy police presence. The Interior Ministry, on March 5, 2011, reiterated its ban on public protests. Al-Juhani demanded democracy and freedom of speech in his interview with the BBC, and was immediately arrested and has been detained ever since. He is charged with being present at the place of a prohibited demonstration; distorting the kingdom's reputation; and being in touch with Sa'd al-Faqih, a Saudi dissident abroad, according to a person familiar with the case who said officials designated the charge sheet "secret." His second trial session is due to be held at the end of April.
"Given their experience with the real harm caused by terrorist attacks, one would expect Saudi authorities to know the difference between peaceful political speech and acts of violence," Wilcke said.
Also in February, the court stopped the trial of Sa'id bin Zu'air, a former university professor arrested in 2007, begun about two months earlier, for a long list of charges related to the religious and political positions he had supposedly publicly adopted. A relative of bin Zu'air told Human Rights Watch that the prosecution could not substantiate its claims, which he said were based on statements by fellow prisoners. This is the only time to Human Rights Watch's knowledge that the court has not convicted a defendant accused before it of crimes related to peaceful expression. Bin Zu'air was released in February.
In December 2011, the court began the trial of Mubarak bin Zu'air, a lawyer and Sa'id's son, for "encumbering" the affairs of the ruler, not complying with rules and regulations, attending an unlicensed gathering, spreading sedition, and not obeying religious scholars. Mubarak's arrest came on March 20, 2011, as he was driving to the Interior Ministry to persuade a small crowd gathered there to meet officials to disperse. Mubarak, as the leader of a group of relatives of long-term detainees, had met Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant minister of interior for security affairs, one day earlier to discuss the release or speedy and fair trial of their relatives, and was on his way to deliver Prince bin Nayef's promises of releases and trials.
Mubarak was released on bail in February 2012, but his trial continues. The same relative told Human Rights Watch, however, that a royal decree had ordered trials of peaceful dissidents to be transferred to regular Sharia (Islamic law) courts away from the Specialized Criminal Court, and that this had occurred with Mubarak's case.
This order, if it exists, is not being consistently followed, Human Rights Watch said. For example, in March and April, three trials of peaceful dissidents began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Mikhlif al-Shammari is being tried on seven charges: attempting to distort the reputation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in foreign public opinion and belonging to suspicious organizations; producing and sending things that can disturb public order and religious values through the internet; stoking divisions and inciting public opinion against various public institutions of the country; doubting and impugning the fairness and integrity of officials in government agencies without sound proof; defaming instructions of religious scholars and describing them as calling for fragmentation, hatred, and takfir (declaring a Muslim an unbeliever) in international television; using his writings, which he claims to be nationalistic, for gain for himself and his tribe and using them to put pressure on the rulers of the country; and lying about belonging to the Human Rights Commission in the Eastern Province. The evidence the prosecution listed for these charges consisted entirely of al-Shammari's published articles or media interviews, and no claim was made that they incited violence, according to a copy of the charge sheet on file with Human Rights Watch.
Security forces arrested al-Shammari in June 2010, and held him in pretrial detention, initially on the charge of "annoying others," before his release on bail in February 2012. He received the new charges at his first trial date in March.
In April 2012, the trials against Fadhil al-Manasif, a human rights activist, and Fadhil al-Sulaiman, a religious activist, also began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Al-Sulaiman was arrested in March 2011, for participating in two protests in the Eastern Province's city of Hofuf where he spoke to the assembled crowd (his defense lawyers claim the prosecution confused the protests - they say he protested at the first, for which the local governor issued an amnesty, and tried to prevent the second).
Continued protests, since February 2011, in the heavily Shia Muslim-inhabited Eastern Province, have called for an end to religious discrimination and equal rights with the Sunni Muslim majority. Al-Sulaiman is now also charged with resisting arrest and breaking the camera of a member of the security forces at one of the protests, which he denies. Shia protesters on several occasions have tried to prevent intelligence forces in the protest crowd from filming protesters, leading a suspected member of the intelligence forces to draw a gun, shoot, and injure three protesters in a peaceful march in Qatif, another Eastern Province city, in March 2011, according to eyewitnesses Human Rights Watch spoke to at the time. Shia activists in Qatif told Human Rights Watch that security forces had made arrests of protesters based on their identification through film material.
Al-Manasif is charged with a long string of nonviolent political offenses, including withdrawing allegiance to the rule, stoking divisions (among the people), inciting public opinion against the state, and disturbing public order by participating in marches. Al-Manasif is also accused of supporting a person on a government-issued list of persons in the Eastern Province wanted for their alleged involvement in riots.
Al-Manasif was arrested on October 2, 2011, but the Interior Ministry published its list of 23 Shia men wanted for alleged acts of violence in relation to the protests only in January 2012. In response, several of the wanted men published detailed accounts online denying the Interior Ministry's allegations against them.
Al-Manasif's arrest came after he attempted to speak with the police in Qatif about their detention of two elderly persons, whose sons were wanted for participation in protests. When one of the elderly men collapsed, al-Manasif followed by car the ambulance taking the man to the hospital, and was stopped and arrested at a checkpoint.
"The charges against these peaceful critics are vague, overbroad, and of a political nature," Wilcke said. "By putting the rulers beyond any form of criticism the charges only serve to underline the lack of tolerance of political dissent."
Proceedings at the Specialized Criminal Court also violated the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said. The Specialized Criminal Court was established in 2008 by the Supreme Judicial Council to try thousands of terrorism suspects, many of whom had languished in the kingdom's domestic intelligence jails for years without charge, trial, or prospect of release. It has no statute or other law setting up the court or specifying its jurisdiction that has been made public. Judges are individually selected to sit on a panel constituting the court, housed on one floor of the central Riyadh General Court, but sometimes also travel to other destinations such as Jeddah for hearings.
Saudi Arabia has no written criminal law and prosecutors and judges are free to criminalize any act in accordance with their own interpretation of precepts of Islamic law. The lack of clear and predictable criminal law violates international human rights principles prohibiting arbitrary arrest and guaranteeing fair trials, Human Rights Watch said. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be held guilty of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." International human rights standards also prohibit the criminalization of speech that does not directly incite violence.
Furthermore, defendants do not have adequate means to defend themselves. All defendants were initially kept in incommunicado detention and were unable to meet with their lawyers before the start of a trial. Al-Bajadi wrote in a signed letter, which ACPRA said it received from him in prison, that Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif repeatedly prevented him from appointing a lawyer of his choice.
In August 2011, ACPRA members tried to attend the SCC trial of al-Bajadi, but they initially did not find the court, which was located in an unmarked villa in the Ubhur suburb north of Jeddah. When they arrived, the ACPRA members showed the court their legal power of attorney for the defense of al-Bajadi, but a clerk informed them that the judge refused to recognize their notarized document, claiming instead that al-Bajadi wanted to defend himself. In a telephone call the next day from prison, al-Bajadi informed ACPRA co-founder Muhammad al-Qahtani that he had been sitting blindfolded in a windowless truck outside the court and was not informed that his defense lawyers had come 1,000 kilometers from Riyadh to represent him.
Mubarak bin Zu'air, speaking to Human Rights Watch from his prison cell, said that he was not informed in advance of the start of his trial in December 2011 or of the charges he faced. In court, he said the judge also prevented him from appointing his defense counsel.
The trial of Abd al-'Aziz al-Wuhaibi, another ACPRA member arrested in February 2011, was held entirely behind closed doors, with the judge denying al-Wuhaibi the right to seek legal assistance to defend himself against politicized charges of disobeying the ruler for attempting to set up the first political party in the kingdom, in February 2011. The court did not supply al-Wuhaibi with a written verdict when he was sentenced to eight years in prison in September 2011. Al-Wuhaibi suffered a mental breakdown and is currently in a military hospital, according to a relative and two persons close to the family.
"If the trials were fair, there would be no reason to close them to the public," Wilcke said. "But it seems like the authorities are trying to obscure their injustices by hiding the courts, trial dates, and defendants from public view."
Lawyers were in attendance for the initial trial sessions of Fadhil al-Sulaiman and Khalid al-Juhani, lawyers and relatives told Human Rights Watch.
Articles 4 and 70 of the Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure guarantee the accused the right to seek a lawyer at all stages of investigation and trial, and prohibit officials from restricting access to the lawyer. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Arab Charter of Human Rights whose article 16(d) also guarantees that right. Article 13 of the Charter guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Charter furthermore guarantees the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (articles 26, 27, and 29).
Human Rights Watch opposes all special courts for so-called national security crimes because they frequently try peaceful dissidents on politicized charges and in unfair proceedings.
A number of other dissidents have remained in detention for prolonged periods without referral to court, in violation of article 114 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, which mandates the release of a defendant unless the trial begins within six months of detention.
Tawfiq al-'Amir, a Shia activist, was arrested in August 2011 for calling for a constitutional monarchy. On April 17, 2012, Nadhir al-Majid completed one year in pretrial detention on charges of corresponding with a foreign journalist, taking part in demonstrations, and vague charges related to his published writings critical of Shia religious doctrine over the past seven years, according to al-Majid's wife. His trial has not yet begun.
On March 4, security forces arrested Muhammad al-Wad'ani as he protested silently, holding up a placard at a Riyadh mosque. In a late February YouTube video, al-Wad'ani had spoken about his demands for democracy and an end to the rule of the Saud family. No further information about his fate was available.
"It is time Saudi Arabia stopped politicized persecution of peaceful dissidents through the courts and respected its own laws on court proceedings and international human rights obligations," Wilcke said.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Dodges Growing Calls for Probe of Mass Graves at Gaza Hospitals
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," said one legal expert.
Apr 24, 2024
While continuing to give Israel billions of dollars in support to wage war on the Gaza Strip, the Biden administration this week has declined to join the growing global demands for an international probe into mass graves discovered at hospitals in the besieged Palestinian enclave.
Two journalists on Tuesday questioned Vedant Patel, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, about the administration's response to the hundreds of bodies found at Gaza City's al-Shifa Hospital and Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis as well as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk's call for an independent investigation.
"Would you support such an independent investigation?" Said Arikat asked during a press briefing. Patel responded, "Right now, Said, we are asking for more information... That is squarely where we are leaving the conversation."
Patel added that "I don't have any details to match, confirm, or offer as it relates to that. We're aware of those reports, and we have asked the government of Israel for additional clarity and information. And that's where I'm at."
When Said asked a follow-up about potential U.S. support for a probe, Patel reiterated that the administration is awaiting information from the Israeli government.
Later, Niall Stanage asked Patel to explain U.S. "resistance" to supporting a probe, the spokesperson insisted that "it's not about resistance to this particular situation, it is me not wanting to speak in detail about something which Said posed as a hypothetical question when, from the United States' perspective, I don't have any additional information on this aside from the public reporting."
After Patel again stressed that the administration has asked Israel for more information, Stanage inquired, "And do you believe the government of Israel is a credible source in enlightening you?"
The spokesperson interrupted Stanage to say, "We do."
While supporting the six-month Israeli assault on Gaza that the International Court of Justice has found to be plausibly genocidal, the Biden administration is also arming Ukrainians' resistance to a Russian invasion. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the Crisis Group's U.S. program and a former legal adviser at the State Department, pointed to the latter.
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," Finucane said on social media in response to Stanage's questioning.
Meanwhile, European Union spokesperson Peter Stano made clear Tuesday that the E.U. supports an independent probe.
"This is something that forces us to call for an independent investigation of all the suspicions and all the circumstances, because indeed it creates the impression that there might have been violations of international human rights committed," Stano said. "That's why it's important to have independent investigation and to ensure accountability."
Human rights groups around the world joined the call for an independent investigation on Wednesday, as the official death toll in Gaza hit 34,262 with 77,229 people injured and thousands more missing and presumed dead beneath the rubble.
In an Arabic statement translated by Al Jazeera, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said that the number of bodies found in the mass graves is "alarming, and requires urgent international action, including the formation of an independent international investigation committee."
The group added that some of those killed were subjected to "premeditated murder as well as arbitrary and extrajudicial executions while they were detained and handcuffed."
Amnesty International senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns Erika Guevara Rosas said in a statement that "the harrowing discovery of these mass graves underscores the urgency of ensuring immediate access for human rights investigators, including forensic experts, to the occupied Gaza Strip to ensure that evidence is preserved and to carry out independent and transparent investigations with the aim of guaranteeing accountability for any violations of international law."
"Lack of access for human rights investigators to Gaza has hampered effective investigations into the full scale of the human rights violations and crimes under international law committed over the past six months, allowing for the documentation of just a tiny fraction of these abuses," she noted. "Without proper investigations to determine how these deaths took place or what violations may have been committed, we may never find out the truth of the horrors behind these mass graves."
Guevara Rosas continued:
Mass grave sites are potential crime scenes offering vital and time-sensitive forensic evidence; they must be protected until professional forensic experts with the necessary skills and resources can safely carry out adequate exhumations and accurate identification of remains.
The absence of forensic experts and the decimation of Gaza's medical sector as a result of the war and Israel's cruel blockade, along with the lack of availability of the necessary resources for the identification of bodies such as DNA testing, are huge obstacles to the identifications of remains. This denies those killed the opportunity to have a dignified burial and deprives families with relatives missing or forcibly disappeared the right to know and to justice—leaving them in a limbo of uncertainty and anguish.
Noting that the International Court of Justice directed Israel to preserve evidence in its initial genocide case order, Guevara Rosas said that "amid a total vacuum of accountability and mounting evidence of war crimes in Gaza, Israeli authorities must ensure they comply with the ICJ ruling by granting immediate access to independent human rights investigators and ensuring that all evidence of violations is preserved."
"Third states must pressure Israel to comply with the ICJ orders by allowing the immediate entry into the Gaza Strip of independent human rights investigators and forensic experts, including the U.N.-appointed Commission of Inquiry and investigators of the International Criminal Court," she added. "There can be no truth and justice without proper, transparent independent investigations into these deaths."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular