Committee against Torture begins review of report of Saudi Arabia

CAT
28th session
8 May 2002
Morning



Government Delegation Queried About Punishments Imposed
under Shari'a Law, Reports of Maltreatment of Detainees,
Summary Use of Force by Police



The Committee against Torture began its consideration this morning of an initial report of Saudi Arabia, expressing concern over punishments such as flogging and amputation imposed by the country's Islamic Shari'a courts and over reports of summary use of force by religious police and alleged widespread ill-treatment of detainees.
Committee members also asked about the use of incommunicado detention and allegations that persons had been deported to Egypt and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya where they had subsequently undergone torture.
Committee Chairman Peter Thomas Burns said he agreed with the judgements of the Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on torture that punishments imposed by Saudi Shari'a courts such as flogging, amputation of limbs, and execution by stoning -- although the last apparently had not been imposed recently -- amounted to violations of the Convention. He also asked if there had been a single prosecution for an act of torture or maltreatment in Saudi Arabia, such of a police officer, given the large number of reports of such violations the Committee had received.
Introducing the report, Abdulwahab Abdulsalam Attar, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said among other things that since the preparation of the report, the Government had adopted a Code of Civil Procedure, a Code of Criminal Procedure, and a Code of Practice for Lawyers; and that Saudi Arabia was one of many Islamic States which had acceded to the Convention on the understanding that nothing therein could be interpreted as being prejudicial to the provisions of the Shari'a Islamic law -- that Saudi Arabia could not accept any effort to render a Shari'a based rule inoperative, nor could it accept any enactment asserted to be under the Convention against Torture that conflicted with a provision of the Shari'a.
Other members of the Saudi delegation were Essa Al-Shamkh, member of the Permanent Committee on Human Rights and Representative of the Ministry of the Interior; Abdulrahman Al-Rassi, member of the Permanent Committee on Human Rights and Representative of the Foreign Ministry; Mohammed Al-Mohaizaa, Representative of the Ministry of Justice; Soleiman Al-Hogail, of the Ministry of Higher Education; Ossama Madani, of the Ministry of Health; Shaikh All Al-Saawi, of the Board of Grievances; Abdulwahab Al-Sodairi, of the Public Investigation and Prosecution Department; Abdulaziz Al-Qoaib, of the Control and Investigation Board; Khalid Al-Shonaiber, of the Department of Public Security; Abdullah Al-Oaiss, of the Criminal Investigation Department; and Abdulrahman Al-Mohaidib, of King Fahd's Police Academy.
The Saudi delegation will respond to the Committee's questions at 3:30 p.m. on Friday afternoon, 10 May.
Saudi Arabia, as one of the 129 States parties to the Convention against Torture, is required to submit periodic reports on efforts to put the terms of the Convention into effect.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to offer its conclusions and recommendations on a report of Uzbekistan and to continue its consideration of a report of Luxembourg.

Report of Saudi Arabia
The initial report of Saudi Arabia (CAT/C/42/Add.2) covers the implementation of the Convention on an article-by-article basis. In a chapter on "General Information" the report states, among other things, that the Kingdom's regulations are derived from the Islamic Sharia and "prohibit all forms of torture"; that article 26 of the Basic Law of Government stipulates that "The State shall protect human rights in accordance with the Islamic Sharia"; that a Board of Grievances is empowered to hear and punish offenses involving abuse of authority in criminal prosecution proceedings or violations of human rights; that regulations on arrest, questioning and remand in custody stipulate that "Anyone who is found to be responsible for the unjustified detention of, or infliction of harm on, any person shall be punished by a term of detention equivalent to that for which he was responsible and shall also be liable for any harm that he inflicted"; and that the Convention "forms part of domestic legislation and can be invoked before the courts and other judicial and administrative authorities in the Kingdom".
The report states that the definition of torture and prohibition of acts constituting torture "are all designated as criminal offenses in the Islamic Sharia and in the regulations promulgated in accordance therewith"; that under prison and detention regulations "all forms of aggression against prisoners or detainees are prohibited and disciplinary measures shall be taken against civilian or military officials who commit any act of aggression against prisoners or detainees"; that a standing commission has been established to investigate accusations concerning the subjection of any person to torture or cruel treatment; that criminal suspects, if accusations against them are deemed substantiated, may be remanded in custody pending completion of investigations, for not more than three days from the date of arrest; and that "detention procedures, as a whole, ensure that any person accused of any offense is treated in a equitable manner and enjoys the right to lodge a complaint with the competent authorities".

Presentation of Report
ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Saudi Arabia was committed to preventing any violations of the rights of individuals and groups; it was committed to preventing torture regardless of who committed such acts. Since preparation of the report, the Government had adopted a Code of Civil Procedure, a Code of Criminal Procedure, and a Code of Practice for Lawyers; the first incorporated many new and powerful provisions concerning the work of the judiciary and courts; the second, among other things, defined the roles of arresting police officers and those responsible for the questioning or indictment of persons arrested; and the third defined the rights and obligations of lawyers.
Saudi Arabia had invited the Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to visit the country in October, Mr. Attar said, and objectivity prompted Saudi Arabia to acknowledge the existence of some individual and isolated cases in violation of the Convention which had been immediately dealt with -- such cases occurred in most countries. But Saudi Arabia was concerned that some bodies had attempted to castigate the Islamic Shari'a in an unacceptable manner, and that the Kingdom refused to accept. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was one of many Islamic States which had acceded to the Convention on the understanding that nothing therein could be interpreted as being prejudicial to the provisions of the Shari'a. In Saudi Arabia, Islamic law was Sovereign, and Saudi Arabia could not accept any effort to render a Shari'a based rule inoperative, nor could it accept any enactment that conflicted with a provision of the Shari'a.

Discussion
Serving as rapporteur and co-rapporteur respectively on the report of Saudi Arabia were Committee Experts Peter Thomas Burns and Alexander M. Yakovlev.
Mr. Burns said among other things that this was the most difficult report he had dealt with; it was almost as if the Committee and Government were speaking different languages; he hoped that the questions he asked, even if they touched on sensitive matters, would be considered not a form of confrontation but of dialogue.
He asked among other things what were the grounds upon which arrests could be made by the regular police, religious police, and security forces, as it appeared that the standard was if an office suspected a crime was being committed, and there was no mention of such matters as "reasonable grounds"; if judicial oversight or warrants were required for arrests; what the constraints were on the jurisdiction of religious police; what the summary powers of religious police were, as there had been many reports of these police using summary force against, for example, women who were considered to be improperly dressed; if there were regulations on the use of force by religious police; if incommunicado detention was prohibited, as there were many reports of persons being held incommunicado and not being able to have access to relatives, to medical practitioners of their choice, and to lawyers, and if recent legislation had in fact finally given defendants the right to a lawyer at their trials, if they could afford one; what were the lengths of pre-trial detention before a suspect had to be brought before a judge; if police were under pressure to obtain confessions, as the legal system placed great value on confessions, and how such confessions were obtained; if confessions, once obtained and accepted by a judge, could not be reversed, as, for example, when a defendant claimed he had confessed because he was being beaten.
Mr. Burns also asked about the independence of the judiciary, as there had been complaints by minorities, including Arabs following other versions of Islam, about maltreatment while in custody. As all judges were trained at a school run by the established religion of the State; who appointed and dismissed judges, and how far removed were those who did so from the executive branch of the State: He also asked if there had been a single prosecution of an alleged offender such as a police officer, given the large number of reports of maltreatment, and if there had been a single conviction; if deportations were not carried out if the persons expelled stood a high risk of undergoing torture, as there were reports that persons had been deported to Egypt and Libya who subsequently had been tortured; if some places of detention were overcrowded and unventilated; and how many cases the Commission to Investigate Torture had carried out, and what were the results of the investigations.
Mr. Burns said torture was an international crime if it was widespread or systematic, or if a single instance of torture occurred at customary international law. Shari'a did not define torture but prohibited it. However, Shari'a also permitted punishment for certain crimes and indicated that certain crimes automatically were associated with certain punishments; and Mr. Burns said he agreed with the judgements of the Special Rapporteur on torture that punishments under the Shari'a such as flogging, amputation of limbs, and execution by stoning -- although the last was not apparently imposed recently -- amounted to violations of the Convention.
Mr. Burns asked if necessity existed as a defense in the Saudi legal system, and if a defense of obeying superior orders existed; if people were held in custody for much longer periods in practice before being brought before a judge than the stipulated three or five days, as many reports had been received of lengthy detentions; if mechanisms existed to ensure that arbitrary arrests and detentions did not occur; if there were authorities in Saudi Arabia who had the power to carry out arrests without judicial supervision, as there appeared to be many such authorities; if Ethiopian Christians had been brutally treated while being held in custody, as alleged, and for what reason they had been held; what methods of discipline were used in prisons, as it had been reported that flogging, indefinite solitary detention, and deprivation of family visits were used for discipline; if any formal instruction in human rights was given to police officers and Government officials; and if doctors were trained to recognize evidence of torture.
Mr. Yakovlev noted, among other things, that the Government did not allow human-rights monitors to visit prisons or to inspect detention centres run by the security forces. He asked, among other things, if those convicted of political or religious crimes were flogged with leather straps, as reported, and if the Government contended, as reported, that flogging should not be considered torture as it was called for under the Shari'a and applied through "due process of law"; if there was a great divergence of views among Islamic scholars over the acceptability of corporal punishment, and if the majority of members of the Organization of Islamic States did not allow such punishments.
Other Committee members also put questions. They asked among other things how many cases of flogging and punitive amputations had been carried out in the past year, and if any deaths had resulted; how a complaint of torture could be filed, who investigated, and what the process of investigation was; if the interpretation of the Shari'a in Saudi Arabia, which allowed corporal punishment, might change, as other Islamic countries interpreted the Shari'a in a way that the courts did not apply such punishments, and as the Shari'a was not a detailed law but a series of general principles that could be interpreted in different ways; if judges had security of tenure; how many persons were arrested or detained, with breakdowns by nationality, sex, age, race, colour, ethnicity, religious affiliation and nature of offense; if foreign women, as alleged, were sometimes detained for months before they could contact their embassies or consulates; how crimes of vice were defined, as exercised by the religious police; if there were "volunteer" as well as professional religious police, as reported, and what instruction or training was required before one could perform the duties of the religious police; if there ever had been any efforts to control or restrain or investigate acts of the religious police; if the Board of Grievances was independent; if Saudi Arabia had considered extraditing Idi Amin to face charges of torture in Uganda; and how compensation could be obtained for a death in custody.



* *** *