ISSUES
o Index

o torture

o death penalty

o migrant workers

o political prisoners

o military, security and police relations

COUNTRY INDEX:
o Saudi Arabia

OTHER LANGUAGES:
o French
o Spanish

A system of injustice

'Lawyer!... There is no chance of having access to a lawyer. I didn't ask, everybody knows, you have no access to lawyers.'
A former detainee who was held in Riyadh in 1999 in connection with an alcohol-related offence

Anyone not in a position of power or influence is in danger in Saudi Arabia. If they are suspected of an offence, including breaking unwritten codes governing moral behaviour or religious practice, they may be snatched from their home, workplace or the street by a wide range of people who enjoy wide powers of arrest. Once caught in the web of the criminal justice system, there is only one guaranteed outcome - their basic human rights will be violated.

Farzana Kauzar with her three children. They were reportedly arrested on 8 October 1997 at their home in Dhahran by members of al-Mabahith al-'Amma and held as hostages in order to force the father to return to Saudi Arabia from abroad. c. Private

Saudi Arabia's criminal justice system subordinates the judiciary to the authority of the executive. The Supreme Judicial Council is responsible for interpreting Shari'a (Islamic law) and reviews all court verdicts imposing the death penalty, amputations and flogging. Its members are appointed by the King. The Ministry of the Interior is responsible for the whole process of arrest and detention, and decides on referrals to courts and indefinite detention. The judiciary is denied any role in supervising these processes.

Arbitrary arrest and detention
Al-Sayyid Munir al-Sayyid 'Adnan al-Khabaz, a cleric from al-Qatif, was reportedly arrested at Jeddah airport in December 1999 on his return from studying in Iran. His arrest was one of many arbitrary arrests reported over the years of people perceived to be political or religious opponents of the government on their return to Saudi Arabia from abroad. A similar welcome home was given to Suha al-Mas'ari when she arrived back from the United Kingdom, UK, in late 1998 after visiting her brother, Muhammad al-Mas'ari, a government opponent living in exile. She was arrested on her arrival in Jeddah, then detained in al-Ha'ir prison in Riyadh before being released without charge in December 1998.

Arbitrary arrests are routine in Saudi Arabia. They are facilitated and perpetuated by:

• the lack of meaningful safeguards to restrain the executive's interference in the processes of arrest and detention;

• the wide powers of arrest by numerous arresting authorities acting with no judicial accountability;

• vague laws;

• the denial of the basic rights associated with a fair trial.

Once arrested, detainees may be held indefinitely with no right to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial authority. All are held incommunicado immediately after arrest, a practice which facilitates torture. Some are held in solitary confinement, denied any contact with fellow prisoners. All face interrogation until they sign confessions or, in the case of political prisoners, pledge to renounce or stop their political activities.

Secret and summary justice
Detainees are routinely denied their rights guaranteed by international fair trial standards. They are generally kept totally in the dark about their cases, sometimes to the point where they are unaware that they have been convicted. Such denial of information leads to unnecessary suffering, as prisoners may not know why they are in jail, for how long they will be imprisoned, or whether they face execution. Court hearings are secret and summary. They are generally held in camera (behind closed doors). This means that the families of defendants as well as the general public are denied their right to be present in court in order to know how justice is administered.

Court hearings generally last between five minutes and two hours. This applies even in the most serious cases involving capital crimes or offences punishable by flogging or amputation of limbs.

The speed of court hearings is partly explained by the fact that defendants have no right to a lawyer or adequate opportunity to mount a defence. In cases known to Amnesty International, defendants have been denied the opportunity to call witnesses. Evidence that may have been gathered during the investigation of the case is hidden from the defendant.

Defendants can be and are convicted solely on the basis of confessions, which may have been extracted by torture, coercion or deception. In theory judges do not accept a confession when it is disputed by the accused on these grounds. However, in practice this safeguard is frequently undermined. Judges also fail to order medical examinations or other investigations to establish how the confession was obtained, as required under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which Saudi Arabia is a state party.

After such summary justice, prisoners then have no opportunity for effective exercise of their right of appeal, even in capital cases. As a result, people are suffering in prison in Saudi Arabia or are facing execution because they were forced to sign false "confessions".

'I was really so shocked to hear the verdict that I could not say anything. It was only a matter of minutes and right there they were able to give a verdict...'
Nieves, a Filipina, who was convicted of prostitution and sentenced to 60 lashes and 25 days' imprisonment in 1992

'The judge started by reading the charges then he asked each one of us to speak. The whole process took about half an hour and he immediately delivered the verdict. I received five months' imprisonment and 120 lashes. I was shattered.'
'Emad 'Abd al-Raouf Mohamed Said, an Egyptian teacher, who was convicted of theft after being tricked into signing a confession in 1996

'I was at my most vulnerable state when the police again pressured me to admit or else I would continue receiving the beating. 'We will let you go if you sign this paper. If not, you may as well die here.' Badly bruised and no longer able to stand another beating, I agreed to put my thumbmark on the paper not knowing what it was I was signing.'
From a letter by Donato Lama, a Filipino who was arrested in October 1995, reportedly on suspicion of preaching Christianity. After a summary trial he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and 70 lashes.