Human Rights Reform: Rhetoric vs. Reality

The Saudi government’s rhetoric about reforms, which increased after the appointment in June 2017 of Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud as Crown Prince, stands in stark contrast to the reality of the human rights situation. Alongside some positive reforms, particularly with regards to women’s rights, the authorities have unleashed an intense crackdown on citizens promoting change, including economists, teachers, clerics, writers and activists – peaceful advocates of the very reforms the Crown Prince was promising or enacting. Strikingly, since 2017 the Saudi authorities have targeted virtually all human rights defenders and other government critics through arbitrary arrests, torture and prosecutions before the SCC and other courts.

Strikingly, since 2017 the Saudi authorities have targeted virtually all human rights defenders

Amnesty International

Indeed, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and the Crown Prince have tightened their grip on the country’s investigative, prosecutorial and security agencies. In October 2017, the Law on Counter Terrorism and its Financing replaced the 2014 counter-terror law. This consolidated state security-related powers in the hands of the King by delegating the authority to arrest, investigate, interrogate and refer individuals to the SCC to the newly established Public Prosecution and Presidency of the State Security, both of which report directly to the King. The new law also introduced the death penalty for “terrorist crimes”, as well as provisions that punish severely acts that may amount to nothing more than people peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.

Amnesty International

From combating terror to stifling dissent

The SCC was established in October 2008 to try individuals accused of terror-related crimes. Initially, it tried suspected members and supporters of the armed group al-Qa’ida. However, the referral of a group of 16 “Jeddah reformists” to the SCC in May 2011 marked a decisive shift in the court’s work to include cases involving individuals who the authorities simply wanted to silence. Soon after, the SCC tried and sentenced a founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA). Since then, many others have faced grossly unfair trials before the court for peaceful exercise of their fundamental rights.

The SCC does not operate according to clearly established and defined procedures. The Supreme Judicial Council appoints the judges, without any transparent criteria for the appointments. Human rights lawyers and activists believe that the main criterion is a judge’s perceived loyalty to the government rather than legal knowledge, expertise or integrity.

The authorities prosecute individuals before the SCC on vague or overly broad charges that are not clearly defined in law and which, in some cases, equate peaceful political activities with terrorism-related crimes. In the list of charges used in proceedings before the SCC made available to Amnesty International, the most common were:

Amnesty International

Some of the charges are themselves contrary to human rights law and standards because they criminalize the peaceful exercise of human rights. The 2014 counter-terror law gave the SCC exclusive jurisdiction to try those accused under the law and to apply the law retrospectively. Some individuals already convicted by other courts found themselves before the SCC facing similar charges but harsher sentences under the counter-terror law.

The 2017 version of the law, like its predecessor, contains overly broad and vague definitions of “terrorism”, “terrorist crime” and “terrorist entity”. It also introduced provisions that punish peaceful expression of views. For example, it imposes up to 10 years’ imprisonment for directly or indirectly insulting the King or Crown Prince in a way that impugns religion or justice. The authorities have also resorted extensively to the 2007 Anti-Cyber Crime Law when prosecuting government critics and human rights defenders before the SCC, citing tweets and other online messages as evidence.

Amnesty International

The first time I saw Yusuf I did not recognize him. When he started talking about his torture during our first visit I needed to see for myself, so I asked him to show me what was under his robe. I was shocked.

Person close to Yusuf al-Mushaikhass, who was executed on 11 July 2017 for offences related to participation in protests in the Eastern Province

Gross Violations of the Right to a Fair Trial

Amnesty International

Trials before the SCC are a mockery of justice. The hearings are frequently held wholly or mostly in secret. The judges demonstrate clear bias against defendants. They do not rigorously examine and question prosecutors’ assertions, and routinely accept defendants’ pre-trial “confessions” as evidence of guilt without investigating how they were obtained, even when the defendants retract them in court and say they were extracted by torture.

The SCC has tried and convicted defendants in the absence of defence lawyers, in some cases after barring them. Judges have also used their powers to convict defendants on vague charges that do not constitute recognizable crimes, and treat peaceful dissent, the protection of human rights and advocacy of political reform as crimes against the state or acts of terrorism.

Amnesty International closely reviewed eight SCC trials of 68 Shi’a defendants, the majority of whom were prosecuted for their participation in anti-government protests and of 27 individuals prosecuted for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association. In all cases, it concluded that the trials were grossly unfair, with defendants convicted on vague, “catch-all” charges that criminalize peaceful opposition as “terrorism” and in many cases sentenced to death on the basis of torture-tainted “confessions”.

In fact, the whole process of justice linked to the SCC is deeply flawed from the moment of arrest to final appeal. Most defendants in the trials documented by Amnesty International were:

• arrested without a warrant;
• not told the reasons for their arrest;
• held incommunicado, often in solitary confinement, without access to their families or a lawyer, for days, weeks or months;
• tortured or otherwise ill-treated in pre-trial detention to extract “confessions”, as punishment for refusing to “repent”, or to force detainees to pledge to stop criticizing the government;
• held without charge or trial, without any opportunity to challenge their detention, for up to three and a half years.

One of the most striking failings of the SCC in the trials reviewed by Amnesty International is its unquestioning reliance on torture-tainted “confessions”. At least 20 Shi’a men tried by the SCC have been sentenced to death on the basis of such “confessions”, 17 of whom were executed.

Hussein al-Rabi’, a defendant in a mass trial of protesters from Eastern Province, told the SCC that his interrogator had slapped and hit him, and threatened to hang him by his arms and give him electric shocks unless he “confessed”. He also told the SCC that his interrogator had threatened to torture him if he refused to confirm his “confession” before a judge. Indeed, when he did refuse to confirm it, he was denied food and water, causing him to lose consciousness and be taken to hospital. He was already suffering from eight bullet wounds sustained during arrest. Hussein al-Rabi’ was executed in April 2019.

Every single defendant in the SCC trials reviewed by Amnesty International was denied access to a lawyer from arrest and throughout their interrogation in GDI prisons. The best they experienced was to meet their lawyer at the opening session of their trial. During the trials, defendants were denied the opportunity to prepare and present their case, or to contest arguments and evidence put against them on an equal footing with the prosecution.

Finally, the right to appeal is violated. Appeals against SCC judgements are conducted behind closed doors without the presence or participation of defendants or their lawyers. In many cases, defendants are not informed in advance of the SCC Appeal Court hearing and only find out after the fact that their appeal had been rejected. Often, the judicial authorities do not inform defendants, their lawyers or their families of the outcome of appeals, even when death sentences have been upheld.