Saudi Arabia repeated its allegations and justifications in its response to a letter from the United Nations Special Rapporteurs regarding the case of the juvenile Youssef al-Manasif, who was sentenced by Taazir rules.
The response to the letter from both the Vice-Chair of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Mumba Malila, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz, was sent on August 2, 2022. The response included legal materials and claimed that the procedures were in line with international obligations, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture while denying the information about the violations that al-Manasif was subjected to without clarifying the facts. The response considered the information provided by the source to be inaccurate and baseless. ESOHR refutes Saudi responses to the letter from the Special Rapporteurs:
- Denial of visits during his period in solitary confinement:
Despite being prevented from communicating with his family or the outside world for six months and being held in solitary confinement since his arrest, Saudi Arabia claimed that Youssef was able to regularly exercise his right to receive visits and calls from his family, as well as from his representatives and lawyers, like any other detainee or inmate in prison. However, the reality is that he was not allowed to appoint a lawyer throughout his detention and interrogation period and was only allowed to do so after the start of his trial before the specialized criminal court.
- The allegations lack consistent evidence, and the prosecutor, in his pursuit of the death penalty, relied solely on statements extracted under torture:
Saudi Arabia claimed that Youssef was arrested based on evidence of him committing terrorist crimes, and charges were brought against him as soon as sufficient evidence was obtained. This is evident from the arrest and search reports and other documents related to his case. However, these claims contradict the official documents and the court ruling that shows the reliance on the confessions of the detainees and other suspects.
While Saudi Arabia reiterated its ban on torture and ill-treatment under Saudi laws and the guarantees these laws impose, it did not address the fact that al-Manasif requested the investigator to testify and requested the visual records and that the court was not bound by the laws that require the fulfillment of these demands to ensure that he was not subjected to torture.
In addition, the Saudi response spoke about the role of public prosecutors in supervising law enforcement, despite documentation confirming their involvement in the violations that occur in prison.
The response also pointed out that the National Human Rights Association is one of the civil society organizations responsible for receiving complaints and visiting prisons, ignoring that the association is a government organization and that non-governmental civil society organizations are banned from having any role.
- The extensive definition of “terrorism” in terms of terrorist crimes:
In its response, Saudi Arabia claimed that its laws are clear and precise enough for anyone to understand and regulate their behavior accordingly. Additionally, the rules undergo continuous review, updating, and improvement. The response also stated that the Terrorist Offenses and Terrorist Financing Act contains no vague or broadly worded provisions.
However, the Saudi response contradicts reality as the law uses vague terms and criminalizes freedom of opinion, expression, and criticism of the King. Several legal analyses have confirmed this, and the law's provisions are widely used to intimidate society.
- Legal and factual basis for the arrest, detention, and charges against Youssef al-Manasif, and the right to access legal assistance from the moment of arrest:
Saudi Arabia's response stated that Youssef al-Manasif was arrested based on evidence of his involvement in terrorist crimes. After he was interrogated and confronted with this evidence, he confessed to committing the crimes and was subsequently detained at the General Investigations Prison in Dammam. The response listed the charges against al-Manasif as follows:
a) Joining an armed terrorist group to carry out terrorist operations within the country to disrupt internal security.
b) Attempting, at various times, to kill security personnel by firing at them and throwing Molotov cocktails at them and their vehicles with the intent to kill or injure them.
c) Conducting surveillance and planning to target security bases and firing at the al-Awamiya police station.
d) Blocking roads with burning tires and throwing them at security vehicles to destroy and disable those vehicles.
e) Financing terrorism and terrorist activities.
f) Possessing weapons and ammunition and using them to undermine internal security.
g) Possessing Molotov cocktails and explosives with the intent to use them to commit terrorist crimes within the country.
h) Distributing drugs on several occasions by concealing other distributors.
The response also stated that al-Manasif received his right to receive visits, make calls, and receive legal assistance. He confessed to the charges of his own free will and was transferred to the specialized criminal court.
- Request for clarification on why the family of Youssef al-Manasif refrained from accessing his medical file and test results:
Saudi Arabia stated that the court seeks to verify all evidence against the accused parties, that national legislation supports the principle of presumption of innocence, and that Youssef's case is still under consideration.
The Saudi response ignored the facts confirmed by the court verdict, where Youssef's arrest was made without conclusive evidence before charges were brought against him. Additionally, the judge did not respond to Youssef's requests to investigate the violations he was subjected to, including torture and mistreatment.
- طلب توضيح سبب عزوف عائلة يوسف المناسف من الوصول إلى ملفه الطبي ونتائج الفحص
Saudi Arabia stated that the court seeks to verify all evidence against the accused parties, that national legislation supports the principle of presumption of innocence, and that Youssef's case is still under consideration.
The Saudi response ignored the facts confirmed by the court verdict, where Youssef's arrest was made without conclusive evidence before charges were brought against him. Additionally, the judge did not respond to Youssef's requests to investigate the violations he was subjected to, including torture and mistreatment.
- In light of the nature of the alleged crimes and Youssef Al-Manasif's age at the time of the events, the extent to which the death penalty complies with the principles of legitimacy, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and the stipulated principles is questioned:
The Saudi response denied that Youssef al-Manasif was a minor when the charges were brought against him, even though the confessions the judge relied on confirm that some of the charges occurred when he was 15 and 16 years old.
Saudi Arabia also stated that, according to the fundamental law of governance, no one could be convicted of a criminal punishment except for a prohibited act under Sharia or legislative law and after being convicted in a trial conducted by the required legal procedures. Youssef's sentence was a discretionary punishment and, therefore, is based on the judge's opinion, not a legal text.
The response further stated that the death penalty is only imposed on the most serious crimes and in minimal circumstances. In contrast, the charges against Youssef, as stated in the response, do not include the most serious crimes under international law, which are limited to intentional killing.
- Detailed information on any measures taken or intended to be taken to restrict the scope of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Arabia reiterated in its response to the special rapporteurs its claims regarding the restriction of the use of the death penalty, stating that it is only imposed on the most serious crimes and in certain circumstances. It also referred to what it described as "reforms" related to the death penalty, such as the abolition of the death penalty for individuals under 18 years old at the time of committing their crimes. The response also referred to the royal decree in March 2020 that suspends the implementation of the death penalty for juvenile offenders.
The European Saudi Organization for Human Rights sees Saudi Arabia's response to the issue of Youssef al-Manasif as an apparent attempt to mislead the international community. The organization points out that all responses did not address the details, as Youssef's request to summon the investigators to appear in court with him and to consider his claim of torture was not mentioned, nor was the evidence that Saudi Arabia claimed the case included.
ESOHR considers referring to the juvenile law and the royal decree as an achievement while ignoring that some charges against Youssef al-Manasif were when he was a minor, confirming the futility of laws and official promises in light of the glaring flaws of the system. The organization also points out that at least nine minors face the risk of execution in Saudi Arabia.
The specialized criminal appeal court upheld the death penalty sentence against al-Manasif. Therefore, he has no option but for the Supreme Court to approve the ruling before its execution.