Uae torture by Walaa Ramadan

en en

The United Arab Emirates and their implementation of torture International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Background: The United Arab Emirates and international conventions ........................................................... 10 International conventions ................................................................................................................................... 10 Regional charters ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Ratification of international treaties on combating torture ............................................................................. 12 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 The UAE and conventions against torture .......................................................................................................... 12 Exercising international responsibility in the condemnation of torture and other ill-treatments ..................... 13 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Roots ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Violations ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Ensuring access to prisoners and ending incommunicado detention ............................................................... 16 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Roots ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Violations ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 Ensuring adequate safeguards during detention and interrogation ................................................................. 21 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 Roots ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Violations ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 Prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment within the law ........................................................... 24 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Legal roots .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Violations ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 Use of statements extracted under torture and other forms of ill-treatment .................................................. 27 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Roots ................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Violations ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Investigation, prosecution, and provision of compensation and reparation .................................................... 29 Principle .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 Roots ................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Violations ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Introduction Torture and other types of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment are basic human rights violations condemned by the international community as an offense to human dignity, and prohibited by international law under any circumstance. Nevertheless, these incidents happen every day worldwide. Human rights observers find that such crimes are rampant under repressive dictatorial regimes that evidently depend on security forces and military might in dealing with citizens and those calling for public freedoms and human rights. Hence, such cases of torture are unheard of in democratic societies, and in the event of such a crime, the community would be in an uproar and the state would use their mechanisms and laws to hold accountable the perpetrators of such crimes and rehabilitate the victims. The international human rights community has realised that UN member states must take immediate steps to address these violations wherever they occur and eradicate them. According to the signed international treaties, the most important of which is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Torture Conventionâ&#x20AC;?; which was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984), human rights experts and international rights organisations agreed on a 12-point program to evaluate the extent to which countries addressed torture and how they dealt with it. The implementation of these measures provides an indication of respective governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; commitment to ending torture, and other forms of ill-treatment, and their contribution for its eradication. The law, charters and international rights groups set out to develop certain principles through which assessment of the level of commitment and respect that police bodies have in respecting human rights and not becoming a tool of oppression in the hands of the regime can be made. These principles are: 1. Condemnation of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, 2. Ensuring access to prisoners, 3. Ending incommunicado detentions, 4. Provision of adequate safeguards during detention and interrogation, 5. Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, 6. Carrying out an investigation, 7. Fair trials, 8. Not using statements extracted under torture or other forms of ill-treatment, 9. Provision of effective training, 10. Provision of reparation, 11. Ratification of international treaties, 12. Exercising

international

responsibility.

The 12 points set out measures for governments to work with and ensure their implementation in order to

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

prevent torture and ill-treatment of persons in custody of the government or agents of the state. Human rights observers claim that violation of rights are continuing on all levels in the UAE, most prominently on the political level pertaining to freedoms of opinion and speech. Human rights records in the UAE are in fact among the worst worldwide according to international rights bodies, encompassing crimes punishable by the international law, such as torture, human trafficking and forced labour. Moreover, the country imposes a ban on the entry of human rights activists into the country to monitor the situation, placing obstacles in their way. This manifests the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge of the fact that the human rights situation is deteriorating. This report sheds light on the level of the UAEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s implementation of the 12 points which it is committed to fulfill according to the international conventions and treaties that it signed. Herein, there will be a summary of each of the principles, with a trace to their roots in international law, and an evaluation of the UAEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of commitment to them.

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Background: The United Arab Emirates and international conventions1 International Conventions The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has acceded to three of the seven main UN conventions on human rights, namely: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1974), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2004), and Convention on the Rights of the Child (1997).2 It has also acceded to six of the eight conventions of the International Labour Organisation, namely: Conventions No. 29 and 105 pertaining to the elimination of forced labor (1982 and 1997, respectively); Conventions No. 100 and 111 concerning the elimination in employment (1997 and 2001, respectively); and Conventions No. 182 and 183 on the prevention of employment of minors (1998 and 2001, respectively).3 The UAE expressed reservations over certain provisions of some conventions to which it has acceded: - The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: It declared that acceding to the convention does not imply its recognition of Israel or the establishment of any kind of relations with it. - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: The UAE sees Article 2 (g) on repealing all national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women as a clause that is contradictory to the rules of inheritance in Islamic law. Concerning Article 9 on equal rights with respect to the nationality of children, the UAE considers this to be an internal matter that should be regulated by national law. Moreover, it says Article 15 (b) on equal civil rights is conflicting with the provisions of the Islamic law; hence, it does not adhere to it. Article 16 on equality in marriage and family relations, the UAE claims, conflicts with Islamic law. It also expressed reservations over Article 29 (a) on resolving a dispute between countries over the interpretation or application of the present Convention by submitting it to arbitration. - The Convention on the Rights of the Child: As for Article 7 (1) and (2) on the nationality of children, the UAE sees that acquiring a nationality is an internal matter that should be regulated by national legislation. The UAE only implemented the provisions of Article 14 on the child’s right to freedom of belief and religion which did not conflict with Islamic law. Also, for Article 17 on ensuring that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, the UAE abides by this according to its own regulations and laws and as far as it does not violate its traditions and cultural values. Concerning Article 21 on adoption, the UAE is committed to the principles of 1 See Appendix A 2 See http://www.arabhumanrights.org/countries/country.aspx?cid=21 3 See previous reference

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Islamic law, which forbids adoption.

Regional Charters As for regional charters, the UAE agreed to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam issued by the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Muslim Countries in 1990. The declaration is a guiding document that does not require ratification. The UAE also signed the Arab Charter on Human Rights/Amended adopted by the Arab Summit in Tunisia in May 2004, but it did not ratify the charter, just like most Arab countries. 4

4â&#x20AC;&#x192; See previous reference

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Ratification of international treaties on combating torture Principle All governments should ratify without reservations international treaties containing safeguards against torture and other forms of ill-treatment, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention against Torture, with declarations providing for individual and inter-state complaints. Governments should also comply with the recommendations of international bodies and experts on the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment.

The UAE and conventions against torture The UAE ratified a number of international instruments on human rights, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It also ratified the Arab Charter on Human Rights. The UAE is among the few countries in the world that have not yet ratified other key human rights treaties, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its counterpart on economic, social, and cultural rights. The UAE did not join the group of State Parties of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Needless to say, many of the articles of the two Covenants and their provisions are derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which has since then received almost unanimous consensus and later became a part of international customary law, making it binding on all nations. Nevertheless, the Constitution of the UAE contains many of the safeguards relating to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by international instruments that the UAE signed as a State Party, especially those related to freedom of expression, free trials, and not being subjected to torture and other forms of illtreatment. These constitutional guarantees attempt to ensure the provision of rights to everyone equally under the law and preserve human dignity. The UAE has failed even today to make revisions to many of its laws and practices so as to make them consistent with international law and standards on human rights. There are still vaguely worded, restrictive and contradictory texts and articles in the Constitution, Penal Code, Criminal Procedures Code and other laws. These relate to rights related to freedom of expression, formation of associations, not being subjected to torture, and the right to a fair trial. This report will document examples of this. Despite the UAE acceding to the UN Convention against Torture, as well as the laws stipulated by the international customary law and the UAE Constitution and its basic law that categorically warns against torture, the UAE authorities turn a blind eye to claims of torture and other forms of ill-treatment against detainees. It appears that such violations have become normal measures in cases of political prisoners.

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Exercising international responsibility in the condemnation of torture and other ill-treatments Principle Governments should use all available channels to mediate with other countries where torture or other forms of ill-treatment are reported. They should ensure that the transfer of training and equipment for military, security or police use do not facilitate torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Governments must not forcibly repatriate or transfer a person to a country where he or she would be at risk such treatment. The highest authorities of every country should also demonstrate their total opposition to torture and other ill-treatment and should condemn these practices unreservedly whenever they occur. They must clarify to all members of the police, military and other security forces that torture and other ill-treatment will never be tolerated.

Roots The preamble to the UN Convention against Torture5, which was signed by the UAE, states the following: The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognising that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 556 [which stipulates “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”] to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, Having regard to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights7 [which says: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”] and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights8 [which says: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”]; both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 5 See http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/arab/b039.html 6 See http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/arab/a001.html 7 See http://www.un.org/ar/documents/udhr 8 See www1.umn.edu/humanrts/arab/b003.html

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

And also having regard to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975,9 and desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world. The political desire on the part of the governments was among the most important principles that was addressed if a person wanted to know whether one country or another was sponsoring torture in a direct way that would lead to its development.

Violations All official statements of the UAE regarding torture inside the country revolve around not admitting or disregarding, and even attacking international and local organisations that bring up the issue of torture and violations linked to performance of security agencies. In their response to the Amnesty International report entitled “Silencing Dissent in the UAE,10” Judge Ahmad Saif, head of the Dubai Civil Court, said that the report was unrealistic in its dealing with the UAE, pointing out that it has great fallacies, and has unclear goals and agendas. He said: “The laws gave people freedom of speech in a way that does not violate the law or infringe on the rights of others, and not even one case related to freedom of speech has been filed at the Dubai Courts in the 20 years since I started this job.” He went on to say that “the judiciary in the UAE was just and that trials take place in the public and in front of the media, in addition to the holding of open sessions, where anyone can see how they proceed transparently and publicly.” Judge Saif asserted that the best response to this report would be the contents of the UAE Law, which has articles that safeguard the rights of others and protect them, while pointing out at the same time that the Court of Cassation and Supreme Court are monitoring the progress of cases, retrying cases if they find an error in the process. This is an indication of the strictness in monitoring the implementation of the law in order to protect the rights of others, contrary to the claims made in the Amnesty International report.11 Judge Ahmed al-Mulla, head of the Sharjah Court of Appeals, asserted that the UAE Constitution stipulates the independence of the judges, and there is no authority over them except their conscience. He added that the country, since its birth, has entrenched this principle and passed legislations that achieved justice for all citizens and expatriates without discrimination. Al-Mulla pointed out that the Amnesty International report was “fruitless” and inconsistent with the legal and judicial reality, noting that trials in the UAE take place publicly and the law guarantees that defendants and lawyers present their defense in order to achieve justice.12 Responding to the Amnesty International report, Dr Anwar Bin Ahmed Gargash, Minister of State for 9 See http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/arab/b038.html 10 See http://www.amnestymena.org/ar/magazine/ISSUE22/SilencingDissentEmirates.aspx?articleID=1159 11 See http://alkhaleej.ae/alkhaleej/page/4867b21e-d15d-432e-a870-acab139d5e04 12 See previous reference

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Foreign Affairs and Minister of State for Federal National Council Affairs, said on Twitter that the hype raised by some Western organisations over the UAE terror list is created by organisations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, many of which sought to incite and create an environment of extremism.13 The talk of torture inside the UAE was not limited to reports by international organisations, as it reached the level of the UN and special rapporteurship, as Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, called upon the UAE to “form an independent committee to investigate all accusations of torture of ill-treatment in detention” and emphasised that this country should not “spare any efforts to implement the human rights recommendations.” The Special Rapporteur said that this committee should include “experts, professionals, and specialists in forensics and psychology to investigate the claims of ill treatment.” Pro-government Emiratis launched a campaign against the human rights reports by Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and others, accusing them of ignorance of the reality in the UAE and receiving false reports from activists abroad. In January 2014, the UAE authorities cancelled, at the last minute, a news conference for Human Rights Watch after it had published a report exposing the human rights violations in the UAE. The official UAE newspapers and the state news agency talked about the visit of the Special Rapporteur in a very different light than reality. Al-Khaleej newspaper wrote in one of its headlines: “UN Special Rapporteur: UAE Is a Model for GCC States,” completely ignoring the sharp criticism of the rapporteur against the UAE.14 In its letter to Amnesty International dated 30 October 2014, the government denied that any prisoners were subjected to torture or other ill-treatment and claimed that this statement was backed by the Emirates Human Rights Centre, which has very good relations with the authorities, after its representatives were allowed to visit persons in detention, and it became clear to them that “there was no evidence of ill-treatment and it proved to them that the vast majority of the inmates were not subjected to such type of treatment.”15

13 See previous reference 14 See http://www.noonpost.net/content/1754 15 See Amnesty International report http://www.amnestymena.org/ar/magazine/ISSUE22/SilencingDissentEmirates. aspx?articleID=1159

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Ensuring access to prisoners and ending incommunicado detention Principle Torture and other ill-treatment often take place while detainees are held incommunicado, unable to contact people outside who could help them or find out what is happening to them. The practice of incommunicado detention must be ended. Governments must ensure that all detainees are brought before an independent judicial authority without delay after being taken into custody. Detainees must have access to relatives, lawyers and doctors without delay and regularly thereafter. Moreover, torture and other ill-treatment in some countries take place in secret locations, often after the victims are made to “disappear.” Governments must ensure that prisoners are held only in officially recognised places of detention and that accurate information about their arrest and whereabouts is made available immediately to relatives, lawyers, courts and others with a legitimate interest, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Effective judicial remedies must be available at all times to enable relatives and lawyers to find out immediately where a prisoner is being held and under what authority, and to ensure the prisoner’s safety.

Roots Incommunicado detention aims to facilitate the process of torture and ill-treatment and the occurrence of “disappearances.” The act of denying the detainee access to the outside world for a long time is in itself considered to be a form of cruel, inhumane and degrading ill-treatment. International standards do not explicitly prohibit detention in isolation from the outside world at all times. However, these standards, as well as bodies of experts, ruled that it is not acceptable to impose any limitation or delay in allowing the person in detention to contact the outside world except under exceptional circumstances and for very limited periods. The UN Human Rights Committee said in April 1997 that “prolonged incommunicado detention can facilitate the occurrence of torture and can in itself be a form of cruel, inhumane and degrading ill-treatment.” Meanwhile, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture called for completely banning the method of incommunicado detention, saying: “Torture mostly occurs during incommunicado detention, thus this form of detention should be banned. All persons held in such a manner should be released without delay and guaranteed access to a lawyer within 24 hours from detention according to the provisions of the law.” The UN Human Rights Committee concluded that incommunicado detention violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (pertaining to no torture or ill-treatment) and Article 10 of the same Covenant (pertaining to guarantees for persons deprived of liberty). The committee also said:

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

“Precautions should be taken against incommunicado detention as a guarantee against the occurrence of torture and ill-treatment.” The committee also said: “Incommunicado detention leads to torture and….thus we should avoid this practice,” and “the situation requires taking measures to impose strict restrictions on this type of detention.” These statements came during its inspection of the existing laws in Peru which authorise incommunicado detention for a period that could reach up to 15 days, according to a police estimate, to interrogate detained suspects on their involvement in crimes linked to terror activities. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said that denying detainees contact with the outside world is not consistent with respect for human rights, as it “creates a situation that leads to other practices, including torture,” and that this type of detention is considered punishment on the family of the detainee and is thus extending the punishment to them in a way that is unacceptable. The aforementioned commission ruled that incommunicado detention for 36 days violates the principle against detention and ill-treatment stipulated in Article 5 (2) in the American Convention on Human Rights.

Violations The detention of persons and detainees, especially those accused of opposing the UAE regime, became a main and persistent crime that has not stopped, regrettably, since the UAE authorities launched a campaign against their opponents in 2011 following the calls made for change and reform in the country. Access to prisoners and detainees inside the detention centers through family visitation or legal counsel visits and contact with the outside world through knowledge of the developments and the changes and access to all kinds of newspapers are some of the things that make it important for detainees to have access to their surroundings. Many of those detained by the UAE security authorities suffered in the past few years, as they were detained for long periods that lasted several months without their families knowing anything about them and without being informed of the reasons for their arrest, which could be tantamount to being considered more cases of enforced disappearance. Under International law, the country is violating the ban imposed on enforced disappearance, as its authorities seize someone and then deny ever detaining him or admit to his detention but refuse to reveal his location. According to the preamble to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which was adopted in the UN General Assembly in 1992, enforced disappearance occurs “in the sense that persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organised groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law.” This description of enforced disappearance applies to the aforementioned incidents, which are considered

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

a crime against human dignity by the same token. This violates Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 20 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, both of which stipulate that those who are deprived of their liberty be treated humanely. Under enforced disappearance, people are doubly at risk of torture, as the link between torture and enforced disappearance is based on a firm grounding in international law. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that “prolonged isolation and deprivation of access to the outside world are in themselves forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.” The European Court of Human Rights also said that the uncertainty, doubts and fears suffered by the families of persons who disappeared for a long period of time are a violation of the absolute and definitive prohibition on torture. There are many examples of the UAE overlooking these principles, which would help in establishing the crime of enforced disappearance in the UAE. On 5 March 2014, security authorities released the detainee Jamal al-Hosani after a four-month enforced disappearance without any legal basis or being presented to a judicial body. Jamal al-Hosani was arrested on 4 November 2013 by the national security agency and disappeared after that, as he had been taken to an unknown location. He was not presented to the competent judicial authorities and there was no word of any accusation levelled against him.16 Abdel-Rahim Mohamed Youssef Nour el-Din is a 59-year-old Egyptian citizen who lives in Abu Dhabi in the UAE and has been working there for about 22 years. Abdel-Rahim set out with his daughter and grandson to Abu Dhabi Airport on 13 January 2014 to drop off his son-in-law Ahmed, who was going to Turkey. After dropping off his luggage at the check-in counter, Ahmed headed for the Border Police for the regular security procedures. His father-in-law then called him, and Ahmed informed him that the security authorities did not give him an Exit Permit and that they had stopped him. Then the line was disconnected. He tried to call him several times for a few minutes, but his phone remained shut. His entire family contacted airport security, who then told them that he had left the country, but the Turkish airlines informed them that he was not on the plane and denied that he had left the country onboard one of its aircraft. The family returned the next day to the airport to ask about Ahmed at Passport Control. The officer there informed them that Ahmed had been prevented from traveling and was still in the UAE, denying his presence in the airport, and added that he had been wanted by the authorities. Upon enquiring at the General Directorate of Abu Dhabi Police, they received confirmation that Ahmed was prohibited from traveling and had not left the country, without being given reasons for his ban or information about his location or which side was holding him.17 The UAE’s violation of this principle is also evident clearly in the case of Dr Ahmed Ghaith al-Suwaidi, one of the defendants in the “UAE 94” case and one of seven activists whose Emirati nationality was revoked in 2011. During the openings of court sessions of the “UAE 94,” he asked the judge to provide him and his 16 See Amnesty International Report on Rights and Freedoms 17 See Al-Karamah Association for Human Rights http://ar.alkarama.org/emirates/item/4827-2014-08-03-16-04-57

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

family with protection from the brutality of the state security apparatus. He said he had been subjected to torture in incommunicado detention for almost a year and that he had been forced to sign false “confessions” saying that the Al-Islah group had been about to stage a coup and overthrow the government. In another case, Sa’ud Kulaib, member of Al-Islah in Ras al-Khaimah, was arrested on 29 December 2012 after posting a tweet in support of those who had been detained against the backdrop of the mass arrests. Kulaib was subjected to enforced disappearance until 27 May 2013, when he was transferred to Al-Sadr Prison in Abu Dhabi. From there, Kulaib informed his family and other prisoners that security authorities had beat him, cut his hand with a blade, placed him in situations of extreme hot and cold temperatures, deprived him of sleep and threatened to pull out his nails. He said the authorities had also tried to break his psyche and make him break down by deceiving him to think that his wife had also been detained and was on a hunger strike. “My legs were hanged several times from an iron bar in a very painful position, as the bar was placed between two chairs and my hands were tied up with a metal chain that left scars that are still visible. My legs were severely beaten continuously for more than half an hour, and then they poured cold water over my head and body. Sometimes they stripped me of all my clothes, with the exception of my briefs, in order to torture me in the manner I described,” said Kulaib when speaking about the torture he experienced.18 According to observations,19 a number of detainees in UAE prisons had been subjected to enforced disappearance and detention in secret locations, including, but not limited to, the following persons: •

Said al-Braimi (aged 42) was detained on 5 March 2013; sentenced to five years in prison on 2 March 2014 after nine months in incommunicado detention,

•

Abd-al-Wahed al-Badi (aged 32) was detained on 5 March 2013; sentenced to five years in prison on 2 March 2014 after nine months in incommunicado detention,

•

Obaid al-Za’abi (detainee found to be not guilty) was arrested twice in a row on 7 June and 12 December 2013,

•

Waleed al-Shihhi was detained on 11 May 2013 and sentenced to three years in prison,

•

Awad Kulaib was detained on 30 December 2012 and sentenced to three years in prison on 3 February 2014,

•

Othman Ibrahim al-Shihhi was detained on 2 July 2013 and sentenced to three years on 10 March 2014,

•

Khalifa Rabi’ah was detained on 2 July 2013 and sentenced to three years on 10 March 2014,

•

Jamal al-Hosani (aged 48) was detained on 24 November 2014; no other information available,

•

Omar Ibrahim Mahmoud (aged 17) was detained on 23 September 2014; in incommunicado detention,

•

Abdul Aziz Mubarak al-Suwaidi was detained on 23 September 2014; in incommunicado detention,

18 See previous reference 19 See Reprieve report http://www.emasc-uae.com/details.aspx?id=6010

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

•

Saleh Mubarak al-Suwaidi (aged 19) was detained on 23 September 2014; in incommunicado detention,

•

Suleiman Rashed Muhamad al-Naqabi was detained on 23 September 204; in incommunicado detention,

•

Khaled Rashed Mohamed al-Naqabi was detained on 23 September 204; in incommunicado detention,

•

Abdallah al-Helou detained 23 April 2014; in incommunicado detention,

•

Badr al-Bahri detained in April 2014; in incommunicado detention,

•

Ahmad al-Mulla detained 1 May 2014; in incommunicado detention,

•

Osama al-Najjar detained 17 March 2014; now on trial after incommunicado detention for six months.

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Ensuring adequate safeguards during detention and interrogations Principle All prisoners should be immediately informed of their rights. These include the right to lodge complaints about their treatment and have a judge rule without delay on the lawfulness of their detention. Judges should investigate any evidence of torture or other forms of ill-treatment and order release if the detention is unlawful. A lawyer should be present during interrogations. Governments should ensure that conditions of detention conform to international standards for the treatment of prisoners and take into account the needs of members of particularly vulnerable groups. The authorities responsible for detention should be separate from those in charge of interrogation. There should be regular, independent, unannounced and unrestricted inspection visits to all places of detention.

Roots There are few rights that aim to protect any individual subject to criminal investigation, including the presumption of innocence; prohibition of torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; prohibition of forced confessions or testimonies against oneself; right to remain silent, and right to counsel. There are other additional safeguards during interrogation, the most important of which is the presence of an attorney during the interrogation. The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers said that “it is preferred that a lawyer be present during police interrogations as an essential safeguard to protect the rights of the accused, as the risk of various types of violations arises in his absence…” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights considers that in order to ensure the protection of the accused’s right not to be forced into admission of guilt or subjected to torture, no person should be interrogated in the absence of an attorney and a judge. Among the other safeguards that are guaranteed by international standards is the prevention of authorities from taking advantage of the condition of the detained individual during an interrogation. Authorities should keep records of interrogations and exclude from evidence any statements extracted under torture or ill-treatment, unless when trying individuals accused of torture. One of the most prominent violations of this principle in the UAE is the direct violation of the principle of the presumption of the innocence of an accused individual, as a person is innocent until proven guilty by a definitive judicial ruling. Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is dedicated to this principle, as it stipulates: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

his defence.”20 Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights also stipulates that “everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”21 The following results should be consequent to establishing the right to the presumption of innocence of the accused individual: •

Guilt or innocence cannot be determined through a judicial body of legal composition after the adherence to the measures of a fair trial stipulated in the relevant national legislation.

•

No person can be convicted on the basis of an action or lack thereof unless that action is considered a crime under national and international law at the time of the action.

•

All persons being investigated should be treated as innocent regardless if they were arrested, detained, or out on bail.

Violations Former Judge Dr Ahmad al-Zaabi was sentenced to 10 years in prison followed by a three-year period under probation, in which he was subjected to torture by agents of the state security during his incommunicado detention, and without access to a lawyer between April 2012 and 10 March 2013, even after the trial actually started. He also said that on 18 April 2012, or around that date, some members of the national security agency held him upside down and started beating his body and the soles of his feet until they were swollen, leaving him with many bruises. He was also repeatedly interrogated whilst blindfolded for periods that sometimes lasted eight hours while those interrogating him set out to pluck hair from his head and pull out his fingernails. At one stage, he said, he realised the presence of blood in his urine due to the severe beating he faced. He said that he was deprived of sleep for long periods of time with bright lights in his cell, which put him under a lot of pressure and stress to the point where he started hallucinating before the security elements confiscated his glasses and left him half-naked, as they did not allow him to wear anything except for a small towel and accompanied him to the toilet every time. During Ahmad’s first interrogation session with an official from the public prosecution on 12 July 2012, which he says was more than three months after he was arrested, he said the following: “They (i.e. state security agents) put me in a separate ward and interrogated me about the association (i.e. Al Islah) and they used force against me in order that I sign statements without ever knowing any of their contents. They also forced me to sign and give my fingerprints while also threatening to revoke my nationality.” When the official asked him about the injuries which were visible to the eye, Al-Zaabi said: “There are marks on the sole of my left foot from the beatings and there are bruises on my nails. The elements of the national security agencies severely assaulted me. They tied me up by raising my legs up to force me to confirm what came in their report. I was blindfolded and did not get to see the person who hurt me and beat me up.22 20 See Universal Declaration on Human Rights http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/arab/b001.html 21 See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/arab/b003.html 22 See Amnesty International report http://www.amnestymena.org/ar/magazine/ISSUE22/SilencingDissentEmirates. aspx?articleID=1159

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

On 16 May 2014, the Abu Dhabi authorities arrested German writer Jörg Albrecht after he took pictures of the Iraqi and Iranian Embassies. There were attempts to oppress all his rights and he was subjected to assault and torture. Upon his return to Berlin, the writer spoke to a German television about his experience, which lasted about two weeks from the arrest to his being denied an exit from the country. Albrecht took pictures of the Iranian and Iraqi Embassy buildings while going around Abu Dhabi, and this led him to be arrested for three days and subsequently prohibited from traveling. More than 6,000 writers and artists signed a petition asking the UAE Ministry of Culture to allow the German writer to leave the country immediately. Albrecht had been a part of the German-Swiss delegation to the Book Fair in Abu Dhabi.23 On 29 August 2014, the UAE authorities arrested about 30 Libyan citizens, including businessmen and a staff member of Al-Jazeera Channel. The Middle East Eye, a UK website in English, cited sources close to two of the detainees – namely, Salem al-Iradi and Mohamed al-Iradi – as saying that the two men had been residing in the UAE for 10 years until now and they were expected to fall into the grip of the UAE authorities because of “political grudges,” as he put it. For its part, the UAE did not deny nor confirm this news, but the Libyan Embassy in Abu Dhabi confirmed it. When reviewing the UAE Criminal Procedures Code and human rights laws, one would find that there were many irregularities in previous measures, particularly with regard to the right of an accused person to knowledge of the allegations levelled against him and access to his lawyer for counselling during interrogations. These are rights stipulated in Articles 99 and 100 of the UAE Criminal Procedures Code and Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights. The danger of the state negligence in providing the necessary protection for the activists and their families is based on several violations, the first of which is not preserving the basic standards of the UAE and international law, as it neglected looking into claims that could include the possibility of the occurrence of crime under the laws of the Ministry of Interior. Moreover, it allowed for the continuation of the campaigns of threats and incitement. The second violation of the rights of activists is considering them innocent after not being proven otherwise, and this violation shows the tolerance for the media incitement against them. Meanwhile, the UN Declaration on defenders of human rights stipulates that countries are committed to taking all necessary precautionary measures to ensure the safety of everyone from acts of violation, terrorising, revenge, discrimination, pressures, or any other arbitrary measures as a result of their participation in human rights activities.

23 See Report on Global Alliance for Rights and Freedoms on UAE

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment within the law Principle Governments should adopt laws for the prohibition and prevention of torture and other ill-treatment incorporating the main elements of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other relevant international standards. All judicial and administrative corporal punishments should be abolished. The prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the essential safeguards for their prevention must not be suspended under any circumstance, including states of war or other public emergencies.

Legal Roots •

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

•

This right is absolute and non-negotiable and applies to every human being. It should never be suspended even at times of war, threat of war, political instability or emergencies.

•

No circumstances should be used to justify torture or other acts of ill-treatment and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. This right is extremely important to those deprived of their liberty.

•

All officials assigned to enforce the law are prohibited from inflicting any kind of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on any person or from inciting or tolerating the use of torture. They are not allowed to justify committing these acts by saying they were ordered by their superiors. They are obliged by international standards to disobey such orders and report them. Considering a person dangerous does not justify subjecting him to torture.

•

The torture and the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including those acts that cause the victim mental and physical suffering, has been prohibited.

•

The use of physical punishment and imprisonment inside dark cells and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments are completely forbidden from serving as punishment for disciplinary offenses.

•

The committee on human rights has alerted countries of the need to clear all detention centres from any tools that could be used for torture or ill-treatment.

•

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

•

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” •

Principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states: “No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Violations Handwritten letters were smuggled out of prisons to reach the hands of Amnesty International and other international human rights organisations in June 2013,24 before a trial on 2 July 2013 in which 22 of 94 defendants provided information about the torture and ill-treatment they suffered. The defendents said that they were all kept in solitary confinement inside cells equipped with bright lights that were kept lit, depriving them of sleep. The letters sent by 16 of the 22 defendants complained of being subjected to extreme temperatures and blindfolded during interrogations. A few detainees also described being beaten up by plastic pipes and humiliated, in addition to hearing suffocating voices indicating the possibility of the torture of other detainees. During the trial, no less than 71 defendants complained about being tortured and suffering other acts of ill-treatment during their long periods of incommunicado detention in the custody of the national security agency. In a similar manner to what happened to the defendants of the “UAE 94” trial, a few Egyptian defendants claimed to have been subjected to torture and other acts of ill-treatment while pending the trial of 10 UAE nationals and 20 Egyptians, which began its sessions on 5 November 2013 before the National Security Department in the Federal Supreme Court. In handwritten letters that reached one of the defence attorneys in September 2013, and after the transfer of the defendants from their secret detention location to Al-Wathba Jail in Abu Dhabi, seven of the Egyptian detainees described what they endured from torture and other forms of ill-treatment during their detention by the national security agency. They said that they were beaten with sticks on their heads and across their bodies, forced to sit in an electrocuting chair, electrocuted on different parts of their bodies, and constantly slapped and punched in the face. They were suspended by metal chains and handcuffs from different parts of their bodies, forced to take difficult and extremely exhausting postures for long periods of time, and subjected to extreme temperatures. The letters revealed they were also interrogated whilst blindfolded with their legs and hands tied to a chair and they were kept in solitary confinement in undisclosed locations for long periods of time. 24 See Amnesty International report http://www.amnestymena.org/ar/magazine/ISSUE22/SilencingDissentEmirates. aspx?articleID=1159

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

They were maltreated and forced to kneel on the ground while members of the national security agency beat them with sticks on their backs and groin areas. The detainees said that the interrogators used various threats against them, including threatening to kill and sexually violate them by using certain tools, infect them with HIV, falsely accuse them of being terrorists or spies, delete their children’s education records, or detain them for a period of 25 years. On 11 February 2014, the families of six UAE detainees in Al-Razin Jail said that the detainees told them that they were placed in solitary confinement without food or water for a full night when they demanded that ranking officers in the prison explain the reason they had been forbidden to contact their families. Six of the activists are inside Ward 8, namely Ali al-Khaja, Fahad al-Hajri, Abdallah al-Hajri, Dr Hadef al-Owais, Abdul-Rahman al-Hadidi and Dr. Saif al-Ajla. The families clarified that they brought them breakfast in the morning, but when they turned it down because they were fasting, the officers in the jail treated them violently and assaulted them, dislocating the shoulder of one detainee and cutting the hand of another in the process. The families added: “After removing them from solitary confinement and while they were breaking their fast at sunset, the prison’s management sent around 30 soldiers, who hold the Nepalese nationality, to forcefully move them to solitary confinement and locked them in there without giving any reason.”

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

The use of statements extracted under torture and other forms of ill-treatment Principle Governments should ensure that statements and other evidence obtained through torture or other illtreatment may not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture or other ill-treatment.

Roots When settling lawsuits, courts should not use any evidence, including the confessions of defendants, that was obtained by means of torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, unless when filing a lawsuit against individuals alleged to have forcefully obtained the evidence. Any statements obtained by means of torture should be ruled out except when trying individuals alleged to have committed the torture. A few other international standards do not only rule out any statement obtained by means of torture, but also refuse to consider any statements obtained by means of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. The aforementioned standards do not only apply to statements obtained from the defendants, but to any other statements forcefully obtained from witnesses as well: “If members of the prosecution obtain evidence against suspected individuals and they either learned or believed--based on valid reasons--that it was obtained through unlawful methods constituting serious human rights violation against the suspects, especially by using torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or by means of other human rights violations, they should refuse to use the evidence against any individual except those who used the aforementioned methods, or notify the court in order to take all necessary precautions to guarantee bringing those responsible for using these methods to justice.” Article 12 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states: “Any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence against the person concerned or against any other person in any proceedings.” Article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states: “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.” Article 69 (7) of the International Criminal Court Statute states:

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

“Evidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognized human rights shall not be admissible if: (a)

The violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or

(b)

The admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity

of the proceedings.”

Violations On 2 February 2014, a State Security Court sentenced political activist and Islamic preacher Sheikh Saud Kulaib to three years in prison on charges pertaining to opinion and expression in accordance with the infamous Cybercrime Law. The State Security Court ignored the political activist’s allegations of having endured torture during his six-month enforced disappearance. He complained to the judge during the first session in December 2012 about acts of brutal torture that were committed against him by investigators of the national security agency. On 17 March 2014, the national security agency detained activist Osama al-Najjar, son of detainee Hussein al-Najjar, against the backdrop of expressing solidarity with his father and defending him against violations committed against him in detention, the last of which was denying him the right to contact his family. He remained in incommunicado detention for three months during which he was subjected to torture, according to a medical source at the Al-Sadr Prison. On 25 November 2014, he was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 500,000 dirhams over a fabricated charge over tweets on his Twitter account.

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Investigation, prosecution, and provision of compensation and reparation Principle Victims of torture or other ill-treatment and their dependents should be entitled to obtain prompt reparation from the state including restitution, fair and adequate financial compensation and appropriate medical care and rehabilitation. All complaints and reports of torture or other ill-treatment should be promptly, impartially and effectively investigated by a body independent of the alleged perpetrators. The scope, methods and findings of such investigations should be made public. Officials suspected of committing torture or other ill-treatment should be suspended from active duty during the investigation. Complainants, witnesses and others at risk should be protected from intimidation and reprisal. Those responsible for torture or other ill-treatment should be brought to justice. This principle applies wherever those suspected of these crimes happen to be, whatever their nationality or position, regardless of where the crime was committed and the nationality of the victims, and no matter how much time had elapsed since the commission of the crime. Governments should exercise universal jurisdiction over those suspected of these crimes, extradite them, or surrender them to an international criminal court, and cooperate in such criminal proceedings. Trials should be fair. An order from a superior officer should never be accepted as a justification for torture or ill-treatment.

Roots The right to reparation for unlawful arrest or detention: Every person who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention has an enforceable right to reparation, including financial compensation. Principle 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states: “Except in special cases provided for by law, a person detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled, unless a judicial or other authority decides otherwise in the interest of the administration of justice, to release pending trial subject to the conditions that may be imposed in accordance with the law. Such authority shall keep the necessity of detention under review.” Article 9 (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” Principle 35 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Imprisonment states: “Damage incurred because of acts or omissions by a public official contrary to the rights contained in these principles shall be compensated according to the applicable rules on liability provided by domestic law.” The right to reparation applies to people whose detention or arrest has violated national laws or procedures or international standards, or both. The necessary measures to exercise this right are not specified. Many times individuals exercise this right by filing lawsuits against the government or the person responsible for their unlawful detention. See Chapter 10/4/8 on reparation for torture or ill-treatment and Chapter 30 on the right to compensation for errors in the application of justice.

Violations During the trial for Case No. 97, many defendants told the court that elements of the national security agency had tortured them and subjected them to other forms of ill-treatment in a bid to force them to sign “confessions,” which they quickly retracted in court. However, despite the seriousness of their allegations, the judge handling the case failed to order an investigation into the matter, accepting the alleged “confessions” as sound evidence despite being retracted by the defendants, or into their claims that those conducting the interrogation obtained it under torture or by force.25 In the case of Qatari national Mahmoud al-Jaidah, and despite the latter’s allegations of being tortured and their consistency with similar allegations made to the National Security Department in the Federal Supreme Court by defendants in other trials, the court failed to order an independent investigation and accepted the “confessions” that were retracted by the defendants and referred to them as evidence of the defendants’ guilt in the charges filed against them. The court convicted Dr Mahmoud al-Jaidah in accordance with the provisions of Article 180 of the Penal Code for allegedly providing financial support to the families of members of Al-Islah who were detained in 2012. The court issued a seven-year sentence for Al-Jaidah while it handed other defendants in the same case shorter sentences.26 On 3 February 2014, the National Security Department in the Federal Supreme Court convicted Sa’ud Kulaib in accordance with the Anti-Cybercrime Law with charges that included “purchasing data servers that contain classified material for the national security agency” and sentenced him to three years in jail without the right to appeal the verdict. To the knowledge of Amnesty International, the court failed to direct an investigation into the allegations of Sa’ud’s endurance of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Amnesty International dubs Sa’ud Kulaib a prisoner of conscience because he was jailed for nothing but his peaceful exercise of the right to express his opinion and establish associations, and it calls for his immediate and unconditional release.27

25 See Al-Karamah Organisation for Human Rights //ar.alkarama.org/emirates/item/4993-2014-10-07-08-13-14 26 See previous reference 27 See Amnesty International report http://www.amnestymena.org/ar/magazine/ISSUE22/SilencingDissentEmirates. aspx?articleID=1159

International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Conclusion Based on the aforementioned facts and the submitted evidence and cases by local and international civil society organisations and international human rights organisations, it is evident that during the past four years, unprecedented violations have been committed against UAE nationals, and the most dangerous of them is the spread of the phenomenon of torture, which has become systematic against anyone who opposes the UAE Government. What adds to the credibility of that conclusion are the testimonies of families of the detained UAE nationals, all of who concluded that the detained citizens were subjected to numerous forms of physical and mental torture, a conclusion they reached after directly observing the detainee’s condition at some of the “extension of detention” hearings they attended and hearing the complaints of some detainees to the judges, in addition to leaked information from the secret prisons. It is worth mentioning that there are other cases and other victims who did not present their complaints before human rights organisations, and hence their sufferings were not made known. According to the aforementioned, the International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights considers that the crime of torture in the UAE could never end without the implementation of comprehensive constitutional and political reforms in the UAE and by providing a political atmosphere that warrants opposing this phenomenon, starting with the UAE authorities’ admission of the violations they committed against the political opposition during the past four years and its maintaining of an atmosphere of reparation and fairness after the unconditional release of the political detainees.