The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention confirmed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is detaining Sheikh Muhammad Hassan al-Habib arbitrarily and that this comes in the context of widespread and systematic arrests that constitute a serious violation of international law.
In an opinion it had adopted in March 2021, the Working Group discussed the information it received from the source about the case of Sheikh Al-Habib, and the response of the Saudi government and ended with the latter's call for his immediate release and his right to compensation. The opinion of the working group indicated that the al-Habib case includes extensive violations and reflected the misuse of laws and the Saudi government's disregard for recommendations and opinions.
Source information:
Sheikh Muhammad Hassan al-Habib (1964) is a Saudi cleric known for supporting protests against systemic discrimination in Saudi Arabia. In December 2012, he was summoned over a sermon in which he denounced religious hatred against Shiites and called on the government to put an end to sectarianism. He was accused of insulting religious leaders and references, calling for sectarianism and inciting against the rulers, and was forced to sign a pledge not to deliver speeches, which is considered a restriction of his right to expression.
During a sermon he gave on July 17, 2015, in response to the bombings carried out against Shiite and Husseiniya mosques in Saudi Arabia, al-Habib mentioned how school curricula promote an ideology of hatred toward Shiites by portraying them as “infidels,” and called for the promotion of dialogue among Muslims.
In July 2016, while travelling to Kuwait, he was arrested by the General Directorate of Investigations without an arrest warrant and taken to the Mabahith prison in Dammam, where he was held in solitary confinement. Al-Habib remained in solitary confinement for four months and was deprived of his right to communicate with his family. During this period, he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment. He was deprived of sleep, forced to take hallucinogenic drugs, forced to squat for a long time and was forced under torture to sign affidavits.
In July 2017, the court acquitted Sheikh al-Habib, but the appeals court overturned the ruling, and in January 2018, he was sentenced to 7 years in prison. In April 2018, additional charges were brought against him, including supporting the demonstrations, and in August 2019, the court added five years to the first sentence.
Saudi government response:
In August 2020, the Saudi government responded to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and considered the allegations contained in the communication to be inaccurate and without evidence. The government said that al-Habib had access to a lawyer and noted that the court had taken the necessary measures to verify information that he had been tortured to coerce him to confess. The response considered that there is no discrimination between citizens and that laws criminalize discrimination.
The working group's response:
The Working Group discussed the information it received from the source and the Saudi government’s response to it and stressed that not submitting an arrest warrant is a violation of international law. It referred to its previous jurisprudence regarding Saudi Arabia, which considered that the arrest warrant issued by the Minister of Interior or authorized bodies like the General Directorate of Investigation, is illegal. The prison order must be subject to the effective supervision of a judicial authority.
The team explained that Sheikh Al-Habib remained 100 days incommunicado before he appeared before the court, and confirmed that he had received several complaints about similar practices by citizens, foreigners and residents, stressing that solitary confinement, which lacks any sound legal basis, is arbitrary in nature because it places Victims are outside the protection of the law and deprive them of any legal guarantees.
The Working Group also noted that Sheikh Al-Habib was ruled under Article 6 of the Anti-Cybercrime Law. He explained that his previous decisions had emphasized that this article was formulated in vague and loose terms, in violation of the principle of legal certainty, and stressed that the principle of legality required the formulation of laws with sufficient precision so that individuals could access and understand the law and regulate their behaviour accordingly.
The Working Group further noted that vague and broadly worded laws may also have a deterrent effect on the exercise of the rights to freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom to participate in political and public affairs, equality and non-discrimination.