The author of the communication is Abdullah Alaoudh, a national of Saudi Arabia born on 28 October 1983. He acts on behalf of his father, Salman al-Awdah, also a national of Saudi Arabia, born on 1 February 1957. The author claims that the State Party has violated Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights under articles 5 (1)–(3), 10, 12, 13 (1), 14–17, 21 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention, and articles 10, 14 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 24 July 2008. The author is represented by counsel.
On 5 March 2021, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures under article 4 of the Optional Protocol, requested the State Party to allow independent medical doctors to visit Mr. Al-Awdah to assess his state of health and needs and to report thereon. On 30 May 2023 and 12 February 2024, the Committee reiterated those requests and further requested the State Party to ensure that Mr. Al-Awdah received adequate medical care and rehabilitative treatment in accordance with his health status and medical needs; and that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention conditions were in accordance with international standards as prescribed in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), as well as its obligations under the Convention, including by immediately ending Mr. Al-Awdah’s prolonged solitary confinement and ensuring that he have access to regular visits by and telephone calls with his family, with the provision of reasonable accommodation given Mr. Al-Awdah’s visual and hearing impairments.
On 18 June 2021, the State Party requested that the admissibility of the communication be examined separately from the merits. On 30 May 2023, the Committee denied the State Party’s request.
Facts as submitted by the author
Mr. Al-Awdah is a prominent scholar and advocate of rights-based reforms in Islamic thought. That work has made him a recurring target of the State Party’s crackdown on critics. Mr. Al-Awdah’s criticism of the State Party’s monarchy is viewed as a political and religious transgression under Wahhabism, the State Party’s official Islamic doctrine. He was a leader of the Al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya (Islamic Awakening) movement, which called for peaceful societal and governmental change. He was detained from 1994 until 1999 without charge. In 2011, he was subjected to an exit ban after supporting petitions for democratic reforms.
On 9 September 2017, two individuals identifying as State Security agents took Mr. Al-Awdah from his home to an unknown location, without presenting an arrest warrant. Mr. Al-Awdah was then ordered to publish a tweet expressing his support for the policy of the Crown Prince, Mohamed bin Salman, towards Qatar, which he refused to do. Efforts by persons associated with him to locate him did not lead to any information and resulted in the arrest of his brother, Khaled al-Awdah, on 12 September 2017. According to the author, Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest occurred in the context of a crackdown on freedom of expression. On 4 October 2017, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances transmitted a case concerning him to the State Party. The State Party summarily replied on 26 December 2017 that Mr. Al-Awdah was detained in the General Intelligence Prison in Mecca pursuant to article 5 of the Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing Act. On 22 December 2017, several special procedure mandate holders sent a joint allegation letter calling on the State Party to release immediately all persons imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of their legitimate rights, including Mr. Al-Awdah and his brother.3 They concluded that the allegations appeared contrary to articles 3, 9, 13 and 18– 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- See allegation letter SAU 12/2017. All urgent appeals and allegation letters mentioned in the present communication are available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. ↩
On 13 February 2018, Mr. Al-Awdah’s family visited him for the first time in five months. In late 2019, he was transferred to Al-Haer Prison, where he remains today in solitary confinement.
The author contends that Mr. Al-Awdah has been subjected to torture and denial of medical care while in detention, which have led to the acquisition of impairments. To punish him for his refusal to comply with the Crown Prince’s request, the authorities have kept him outside the protection of the law, subjected him to long periods of secret and incommunicado detention, several years of solitary confinement and sensory deprivation and other forms of physical and psychological torture. From September 2017 to September 2018, he was kept in solitary confinement in a small cell and deprived of natural light, continuously blindfolded, shackled, handcuffed, deprived of sleep and medical assistance, and interrogated day and night for extended periods. He was regularly beaten, handled violently and deprived of access to a bathroom, food and sleep. He was thrown food in a bag without his hands being unshackled, which forced him to remove the food with his mouth and to damage his teeth. Prison officials denied him medication until January 2018, when he had to be urgently hospitalized due to life-threatening high blood pressure. According to reports from unofficial sources, he is still being interrogated with these techniques to force him to sign selfincriminating documents, rendering him increasingly submissive. The author refers to a report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism on his visit to Saudi Arabia according to which the failure of Saudi Arabia to provide minimum procedural safeguards during detention and interrogation, and its judicial practice of admitting coerced confessions into evidence, strongly suggested that the practice was officially endorsed.4
- A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 41. ↩
Mr. Al-Awdah was denied all form of contact with the outside world from May 2020 to November 2020. In November 2020, Mr. Al-Awdah’s family learned from medical prison staff that he had lost at least half of his sight in both eyes and more than half of his hearing. On 18 November 2020, his children saw him at the State Security Court, but he appeared disoriented, unresponsive and completely aloof, a different man from the prolific scholar and public speaker he was known to be. His family has witnessed the fact that his consciousness lacks clarity, that he cannot comprehend his environment and that he is inattentive. Mr. AlAwdah is facing a real risk of blindness given the denial of medical treatment and rehabilitation. He was denied medical care and forced to take unidentified psychotropic medication.
The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah has been subjected to an unfair trial. He was denied access to legal assistance and has been kept outside the protection of the law. Most of his hearings are held without prior notice, secretly and in camera. Mr. Al-Awdah did not have access to his file and was not informed of the charges against him until 4 September 2018, during his first, and secret, appearance before the prosecution of the Specialized Criminal Court, which requested the death penalty against him on account of 37 vaguely defined charges. According to the special procedure mandate holders in the letter sent regarding Mr. Al-Awdah and others, the charges against them are based on overly broad definitions of terrorism and other State security-related crimes that carried the potential for deliberate misuse and unintended human rights abuses.5
- See allegation letter SAU 12/2017. ↩
The author refers to reports that signal that the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act “provides for the death penalty for crimes that do not entail the loss of life”.6 The author argues that this is all the more concerning in Mr. Al-Awdah’s case given the circumstances of his case and his state of health and impairments. The author notes that special procedure mandate holders have stated that the allegations regarding Mr. Al-Awdah and others seem to indicate a prima facie violation of the prohibition of torture.7
The author contends that the present communication is admissible. First, Mr. AlAwdah is a person with disabilities given his impairments of mental functions, sensory functions and pain, and functions of the digestive, metabolic and endocrine systems, in terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Second, no domestic remedies are available to his family, as pursuing remedies would be futile and dangerous in the light of the retaliatory measures taken against him and his brother and son. Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested directly after a legislative reform that placed all investigative, prosecutorial and judicial authorities under the direct authority of the King.8 Given the charge against him of criticizing the royal authorities, the latter are investigator, judge, party and executioner. The author notes concerns expressed by treaty bodies that authorities in the State Party cannot provide an independent and impartial remedy9 and that the judiciary lacks independence.10 The author argues that the special procedure mandate holders who intervened in relation to Mr. Al-Awdah do not constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol.11
Complaint
The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah’s health is severely restricting his mobility and self-care. The denial of medical and rehabilitative care and accommodation impede his engagement in major life areas, including his scholarship and other previous intellectual remunerated activities.12 Mr. Al-Awdah’s prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement and the denial of care and accommodation constitute deliberate restrictions on his engagement with organized social and civic life. He is forbidden any social interaction, recreation, leisure or common worship. The author asserts that in these circumstances, he cannot enjoy any of his rights under the Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including to meaningfully engage in political life.
- The author refers to specific elements of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. ↩
According to the author, since his arrest under the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, Mr. Al-Awdah has been denied his right to effective access to justice on an equal basis with others, to equal recognition before the law, and to liberty and security, in violation of articles 5 (1)–(3), 13 and 14, read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention. He is a victim of multiple discrimination on the basis of his political opinions and his impairments resulting from torture and denial of medical care, which are known to the authorities. Having been made psychologically and physiologically incapable of expressing criticism, he has been denied reasonable accommodation to punish and directly discriminate against him. He is also indirectly discriminated against as the limited rights allowed under the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act are inaccessible to him. Moreover, his family has been subjected to collective punishment as his brother was arrested, a travel ban was imposed on his family and the author has been harassed. Mr. Al-Awdah was not provided with unhindered and confidential visits with his relatives and independent legal counsel or additional tools of communication such as oral means. It is challenging for him to hear his family speaking during the visits, as they take place in a soundproofed booth with two phones connecting each side.
The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah was not provided with adequate support or accommodation to exercise his rights under article 12 (1)–(4), read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention. The authorities subjected him to enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention for long periods, leaving his family without any information on his health, in breach of article 12 (1) of the Convention. The authorities provided no adequate form of support to him to exercise his legal capacity, in violation of article 12 (2) and (3) of the Convention, as no legal counsel has been allowed to communicate with him, and his ability to comprehend his environment has been severely affected. The 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act lacks any appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse, in breach of article 12 (4) of the Convention.
According to the author, the authorities have breached Mr. Al-Awdah’s right to access to justice under article 13 (1) read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14 of the Convention, in the absence of any measures taken to allow him to communicate confidentially with independent legal counsel or to have an independent examination of his mental and bodily functions to assess his requirements. He is thus left to die in his cell. His current state and the denial of visits, legal counsel and medical assistance pose insurmountable obstacles to his access to justice. The author reiterates that the Specialized Criminal Court lacks independence. Moreover, the State Party has failed to establish accessible complaint mechanisms empowered to hear complaints of persons with disabilities.13
- The author refers to the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities. ↩
The author contends that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention breaches his rights under article 14 (1) (a) and (b) and (2) read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (3), 13 (1) and 21 of the Convention. Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention is unlawful as it contradicts the standards of legality and non-discrimination. His case fits into a pattern of detention of dissidents under the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, which does not abide by lawfulness standards.14 The author argues that the Public Prosecution’s Office and the Presidency of State Security do not meet the requirement that any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence.15 Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention is also arbitrary, given the refusal to provide procedural and reasonable accommodation and because he has been detained for exercising his rights. Moreover, he was arrested on 9 September 2017 pursuant to the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, which entered into force on 31 October 2017, in violation of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege.
- The author refers to the following Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opinions Nos.: 10/2018, para. 52; 32/2017, para. 40; 33/2017, para. 102; 36/2017, para. 110; 41/2017, paras. 98–101; 44/2016, para. 37; 51/2017, para. 57; 56/2017, para. 72; 62/2018, paras. 57–59; 71/2019; and 93/2017, para. 61. ↩
- Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, opinion No. 93/2017, para. 44. ↩
The author submits that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention breaches his rights under article 21 read in conjunction with articles 5 (3) and 14 (1) and (2) of the Convention, as it is meant to punish him for his peaceful criticism.
The author argues that the treatment of Mr. Al-Awdah in detention amounts to a breach of his rights under articles 15, 16 and 17 read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention, given his enforced disappearance and lengthy incommunicado detention, the cruel and inhumane conditions thereof, including solitary confinement and sensory deprivation, and his powerlessness resulting from the denial of reasonable accommodation. Mr. Al-Awdah’s family has unsuccessfully demanded an independent medical examination, which shows a lack of effective independent prevention, monitoring and complaint mechanisms.
Moreover, the conditions of detention of Mr. Al-Awdah and denial of appropriate medical care breach his rights to life and health under articles 10 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14 (2), of the Convention. Despite its heightened duty of care towards Mr. Al-Awdah as a person with disabilities in detention and even though his symptoms show an urgent need for a complete medical assessment and care, he has been left in solitary detention without care or tools to communicate his requirements, practically condemned to a slow death in detention, contrarily to rules 24 to 35 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
The author contends that the failure to release Mr. Al-Awdah in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic breached his rights under articles 10, 14 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention. He argues that Mr. AlAwdah is under imminent, serious and irreversible threat, as his old age and chronic high blood pressure constitute significant risk factors in case of an infection with COVID19. Pursuant to said provisions, he should be released immediately. In addition, Mr. Al-Awdah is at risk of being sentenced to death, which may be carried out any time without prior notice, in breach of his rights under article 10 of the Convention.
The author argues that the State Party confirmed the veracity of his allegations in its replies to the letters sent by special procedure mandate holders. The author submits his claims of violations of the Convention alone and in conjunction with article 1, as deeply entrenched practices and the impunity that surrounds them defeat the purpose of the Convention; with article 3, as they violate each principle of the Convention; and with article 4 (1)–(3) as the violations are a consequence of a failure to respect, protect and fulfil the right of all persons with disabilities to non-discrimination and equality, including by failing to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute such discrimination.16
- The author refers to general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 30. ↩
The author requests that the State Party provide restitution, including the restoration of liberty, the end of reprisals against Mr. Al-Awdah and his relatives, compensation, satisfaction, and measures and guarantees of non-repetition. The author refers to the recommendation made by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism to urgently review all current cases in which prisoners accused and sentenced for crimes of terrorism were facing the death penalty in order to ensure that international minimum standards were met in each case.17 The author requests that the Committee issue a public statement on the reprisals against Mr. AlAwdah and his family in a context of generalized intimidation of political opponents and ask the authorities to refrain from such acts against Mr. Al-Awdah and his family; adopt all measures necessary to protect them; and report with information on measures taken to comply with the request.
- A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, para. 55. ↩
State Party’s observations on admissibility
In its observations dated 18 June 2021, the State Party contends that the Committee lacks competence to consider the communication under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, because Mr. Al-Awdah is not a person with disabilities in accordance with article 1 of the Convention.
The State Party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol, as Mr. Al-Awdah has not authorized the author to mandate Alkarama to submit the communication. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Al-Awdah from submitting a communication himself or from submitting a signed authorization.
According to the State Party, the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, as the author has not exhausted remedies or explained the reasons for failing to do so. The State Party argues that Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother was arrested not for having denounced his arrest but for terrorist offences. According to the State Party, the author should have brought the communication before domestic courts, which are effective within a reasonable time and available to him. Domestic legislation provides effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others and requires the authorities to provide remedies regardless of religion, race, sex or nationality. In the event of a violation, the judiciary and governmental and non-governmental human rights organizations can provide effective remedies.
The State Party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol as manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated, since the author has not provided any evidence of the alleged violations. The author affirms that only a medical assessment can determine Mr. Al-Awdah’s medical condition, but the communication lacks such an assessment, and he does not explain how he has concluded that Mr. Al-Awdah has several disabilities in terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. According to the State Party, Mr. Al-Awdah receives continuous medical care and examination by an independent medical body.
The State Party observes that the interim measures requested by the Committee are already legally guaranteed to all detainees. All medical care necessary is provided to Mr. AlAwdah, as it is to other detainees. Mr. Al-Awdah has undergone several medical examinations, including upon his detention. Continuous examinations are conducted against the spread of COVID-19 among detainees.18 Sixty-eight per cent of detainees in the prisons of the Presidency of State Security have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The remaining detainees can decide whether to be vaccinated or not.
- The State Party lists the following examinations: “vital signs: within the normal range”; “medical examinations and results of analyses: normal”; “medical examinations of the lower limbs and spine: minor pain in the lower limbs”; “neurological examination: normal”; “spinal sensation test: normal”; “straight leg raise test: 90 degrees”; “he has scheduled visits to specialized medical clinics”. ↩
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility
In his comments dated 3 April 2023, the author submits that Mr. Al-Awdah is protected by the Convention as a person with disabilities. He argues that the information provided by the State Party on medical examinations is vague, incomplete and undated and does not respond to the medical issues and impairments raised in the initial submission. Despite Mr. Al-Awdah’s age and impairments, the information lacks mention of a basic head examination, including of his vision and hearing. The overview also lacks information on his mental health even though, at the time of the submission of the author’s comments, he had been held in solitary confinement for almost six years uninterrupted. Mr. Al-Awdah’s family witnessed his impairments first-hand during the hearing before the Specialized Criminal Court in November 2020 and again during sporadically allowed visits.
The author notes that Mr. Al-Awdah is physically separated from his relatives by soundproofed glass during visits. It has become increasingly difficult for his relatives to have meaningful discussions with him, as he cannot properly hear them or see their facial expressions. The author argues that prolonged solitary confinement causes serious psychological and physical harm and leads to and aggravates permanent impairments. According to the author, Mr. Al-Awdah acquired those impairments in detention and neither he nor his family have been allowed to access his medical records or seek an independent medical assessment.19 The author expresses concern at the State Party’s argument regarding the absence of a medical assessment, which he precisely requested in his initial submission. However, a visit in accordance with the Committee’s request for interim measures has never been allowed. The State Party does not indicate the nature of the medical body responsible for providing care to Mr. Al-Awdah or how its independence is guaranteed and has not allowed him independent legal counsel to ensure access to an independent healthcare provider. Despite the seriousness of his symptoms, Mr. Al-Awdah is being held in solitary confinement, deprived of contact and of any means to communicate his requirements, as punishment for his criticism of the Crown Prince. Prison guards are instructed not to talk with him when they bring him food.
- The author refers to a finding by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism regarding “the absence of genuinely independent medical examinations of suspects alleging torture (A/HR/40/52/Add.2, para. 31). ↩
Regarding the State Party’s argument under article 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol, the author reiterates that the detention conditions of Mr. Al-Awdah amount to a violation of article 12 of the Convention, that his family is seldom allowed to see him, that he has no access to a lawyer or to any form of reasonable accommodation, and that he is not allowed phone calls to his family. The State Party has denied Mr. Al-Awdah’s legal capacity and prevented him and his relatives in the State Party from submitting or authorizing the submission of a communication. As the son of Mr. Al-Awdah, he has a legitimate interest in defending him and, living abroad, he is the only family member who could materially sign and submit the authorization.
The author reiterates that domestic remedies are illusory and perilous, as Mr. AlAwdah’s detention, placement outside the protection of the law and denial of legal assistance and of his right to challenge his detention before an independent court prevent him from having access any of his rights. Mr. Al-Awdah has been presented only once before the prosecution of the Specialized Criminal Court, in November 2020, and he could not hear or comprehend what happened during the hearing, was not accompanied by a lawyer and could not speak. Another hearing was held on 6 July 2021, but Mr. Al-Awdah was not presented before the judge, who decided to reschedule without setting a date for the next hearing. Without any hearing, Mr. Al-Awdah has thus been confined to indefinite detention.
The author refers to observations by the Committee against Torture and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, according to which the State Party’s laws do not specify a time frame within which officials must honour the right of persons deprived of their liberty to have access to a lawyer and lawyers must obtain the permission of investigators in order to access their clients and the Specialized Criminal Court is insufficiently independent of the Ministry of the Interior and cannot be considered an independent and impartial tribunal.20 Institutional reforms have placed the investigatory powers of the Ministry of the Interior directly under the authority of the Public Prosecution’s Office and the Presidency of State Security, both of which report directly to the King.
- CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, paras. 14 and 17; and Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, opinion No. 86/2020, paras. 83 and 84. ↩
The author argues that Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother was arrested only four days after the arrest of Mr. Al-Awdah, which he had denounced on social media and reported to the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother is being held in Al-Tarafiya Prison, where he has been regularly subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention and solitary confinement, tortured and deprived of legal assistance. In October 2018, he was prosecuted before the Specialized Criminal Court on charges such as “sympathizing with his brother”, “mixing private and public business” and “seeking to employ the arrest of his brother to stir up discord and destabilise security”.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
In its observations dated 31 August 2023, the State Party reiterates that the communication is inadmissible as Mr. Al-Awdah does not have disabilities, given that medical examinations have confirmed that he does not “suffer from any severe lack of visual and auditory functions” and the communication lacks proof to the contrary. The State Party affirms that Mr. Al-Awdah can authorize the submission of the communication, as he has effective access to the judiciary, attends court sessions, was never subjected to enforced disappearance and has contact with his family. The State Party submits that the author has not demonstrated that he need not exhaust domestic remedies, noting that Mr. Al-Awdah has appointed A.A.-N. as lawyer of his choice and several of his sons as his agents, that he enjoys all his rights in detention and that his trial, conducted before an independent and competent court, is fair and public. The communication lacks substantiation in the absence of any evidence, and the claims are fabricated. The State Party submits that the author took more than 21 months to respond to its observations on admissibility and that the delay constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
The State Party observes that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued under article 4 of the Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing Act of 2013, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity, based on evidence that he had committed crimes of terrorism unrelated to political or religious activities. Mr. Al-Awdah was informed of the charges against him on the same day and of his rights to a lawyer in accordance with domestic law. His detention was subsequently extended pursuant to a judicial order, while he continued to enjoy his right to challenge the legality of his detention in accordance with article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the interrogation procedure, the investigative authority decided to charge him and referred his file to the Specialized Criminal Court. A statement by the Public Prosecutor was read out to Mr. Al-Awdah during the trial and he was provided with a copy thereof. The Court granted his request for legal aid. He has been responsive to the Court, has been aware of the procedures relating to him, has reviewed the list of public proceedings, has requested a reasonable deadline from the Court to prepare his defence and has met on an ongoing basis with his lawyer and agents, who were granted sufficient time and access to files and submitted a defence. Mr. Al-Awdah’s trial is public, attended by his representatives, members of his family and representatives of the Human Rights Commission, the media and embassies. The case remains pending. Mr. Al-Awdah and his family have not been subjected to any form of intimidation or reprisals, which are criminalized under the laws of the State Party.
The State Party denies that Mr. Al-Awdah has been subjected to enforced disappearance, torture, abuse or deprivation of care. The author’s claims are detached from reality and unsupported by evidence. Mr. Al-Awdah has been treated well since his arrest, as corroborated by medical reports based on independent examinations, and the authorities did not refuse to disclose the place of his arrest to his family. At its 115th session, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances decided to consider his case as clarified. The State Party’s laws prohibit enforced disappearance.
The State Party’s Human Rights Commission has confirmed that Mr. Al-Awdah’s health is good, he receives appropriate medical care, including medication and glasses, he is subject to regular follow-up and he has been examined by orthopaedics, internal medicine, surgery and urology and for his eyes, heart, ears, nose and throat. The Human Rights Commission continues to follow up on his case. He enjoys all his rights, consistent with international human rights standards. There are no barriers to visits, of which he has received more than 55, including 15 private visits by his wives, 31 public visits by his wives, brothers, sons and daughters, and 9 by his lawyers and agents. He is detained in collective wards, is placed in a single room at his will rather than in solitary confinement and has access to detention services such as a library and entertainment.
The State Party submits that the arrest and trial of Mr. Al-Awdah are in accordance with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Pursuant to the Medical Services Regulation, detainees are medically examined immediately upon their detention and regularly thereafter, and all prisons are subject to judicial, administrative, health and social inspections. All detainees enjoy comprehensive medical care in accordance with applicable legislation. The State Party has replaced the Care of the Disabled Act with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, thus promoting, inter alia, societal inclusivity, equal opportunities, nondiscrimination, accessibility and accommodation.
The State Party submits that, pursuant to the Basic Law of Governance and the Judicial Law, the judiciary enjoys complete independence. Torture constitutes a serious crime in the State Party, which takes effective measures to prevent its commission. If there is good reason to believe that torture has been committed, investigations are conducted immediately, even in the absence of a complaint. Domestic laws are sufficiently precise to be predictable and respect the presumption of innocence, safeguard the conduct of criminal proceedings, protect the legal profession and protect the rights to a fair and public trial before a competent and independent court, to legal assistance and to object to a sentence before a higher court. The Specialized Criminal Court is independent, and appointments and promotions in the judiciary are made by royal order on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Judicial Council. The State Party respects the right to freedom of opinion and expression for everyone except in cases of infringement of public order, society or its constituents. No one is detained for exercising their rights. The State Party affirms that terrorism is one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that it counters terrorism consistently with international standards.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
In his comments dated 17 January 2024, the author reiterates that Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest and detention do not have a legal basis. The author affirms that the 2017 CounterTerrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act is vaguely and broadly worded and establishes discretionary power to issue prison sentences for criticism of the monarchy.
The author reiterates that Mr. Al-Awdah was subjected to enforced disappearance, held in solitary confinement and indefinite detention, deprived of medical care and threatened with the death penalty, which amount to severe physical and psychological torture. However, the State Party has merely affirmed that he was not tortured. His family is seldom allowed to see him and only during monitored non-contact visits and he is not allowed to call them. He continues to lack access to a lawyer or reasonable accommodations. The author disputes that the State Party’s judiciary is independent, noting that article 52 of the Basic Law of Governance states that judges are appointed and removed from office by the King. The Specialized Criminal Court is composed of judges directly appointed by the Ministry of the Interior and is thus not independent.
Consideration of admissibility
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 70 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.
The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the Committee lacks competence to consider the present communication under article 1 of the Optional Protocol because Mr. Al-Awdah is not a person with a disability within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, as medical reports have confirmed that his health is good and that he does not suffer from any severe lack of visual and auditory functions. However, the Committee also notes the author’s arguments that the information provided by the State Party is vague, incomplete and undated and does not respond to his claims, and that the State Party, which is holding Mr. Al-Awdah in detention, has not provided medical reports. In that regard, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State Party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State Party is in possession of the necessary information.21 As Mr. Al-Awdah is in detention, the Committee considers that it is for the State Party to conduct a medical assessment and to provide the result thereof. The Committee notes the absence of such assessment and the author’s information that Mr. AlAwdah has lost at least half of his previous sight in both eyes and more than half of his previous hearing and that he has appeared disoriented, unresponsive and aloof. The Committee recalls that, under article 1 of the Convention, persons with disabilities include, but are not limited to, those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.22 In this regard, the Committee recalls that a human rights-based model of disability requires the diversity of persons with disabilities to be taken into account (preamble to the Convention, para. (i)) together with the interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers (preamble to the Convention, para. (e)).23 In view thereof, the Committee considers that Mr. Al-Awdah is a person with disabilities within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention who is claiming violations of his rights under the Convention, and therefore concludes that he has victim status and that article 1 of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the present communication.
- For example, Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011), para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008/Rev.1), para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3. ↩
- S.C. v. Brazil (CRPD/C/12/D/10/2013), para. 6.3; X v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014), para. 7.6; Y v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/20/D/23/2014), para. 7.5; and Z v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/22/D/24/2014), para. 7.3. ↩
- S.C. v. Brazil, para. 6.3; X v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.6; Y v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.5; Z v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 7.3; Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia (CRPD/C/30/D/84/2020), para. 12.2. ↩
The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that Alkarama has not provided proof that it has been duly authorized to submit the present communication. The Committee notes, however, that the communication includes a copy of a signed document by which the author authorizes Alkarama to file the communication to the Committee on behalf of Mr. Al-Awdah. The Committee further notes that, although the communication lacks a written authorization by Mr. Al-Awdah himself, the author argues that he has a legitimate interest as Mr. AlAwdah’s son in defending him, and that Mr. Al-Awdah has been kept outside the protection of the law. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that Mr. Al-Awdah has appeared disoriented, unresponsive, aloof and inattentive during his detention, and that he cannot comprehend his relatives during visits. In those circumstances,24 the Committee concludes that the author has jus standi under article 1 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
- Rule 69 of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CRPD/C/1/Rev.1). ↩
The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the author abused his right to submit a communication as he took more than 21 months to respond to its observations on admissibility. The Committee notes, however, that the author submitted his comments within a month from the date on which the observations were transmitted to him. Noting that the Optional Protocol and rules of procedure do not stipulate whether or in which circumstances a delay in responding to the State Party’s observations may constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication, the Committee considers that, in the present case, article 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol does not prevent it from considering the present communication.
The Committee notes that several special procedure mandate holders have sent joint allegation letters and joint urgent appeals to the State Party concerning Mr. Al-Awdah’s alleged detention, enforced disappearance and torture.25 The Committee recalls, however, that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council do not generally constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol.26 The Committee also notes that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared the detention of Mr. Al-Awdah commencing in 1994 to be arbitrary, but that this period of detention is outside the scope of the present communication.27 Accordingly, the Committee considers that article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from examining the present communication.
The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, as the author has not explained why he has not exhausted domestic remedies; judicial, other governmental and non-governmental remedies are effective; Mr. Al-Awdah has attended his trial, which complies with fair trial standards; and there have been no reprisals against his family. The Committee notes the author’s claims that complaining to the Public Prosecutor’s Office would not constitute an effective remedy, as that Office is under the direct control of the King, who is ultimately judge and party, and Mr. Al-Awdah has been detained precisely for his criticism of the royal authorities. In addition, the Committee recalls concerns that the Human Rights Commission and the General Directorate of Investigation, its control body, lack independence and competence in cases of alleged arbitrary detention and therefore cannot provide an independent and impartial remedy.28 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that pursuing domestic remedies would be dangerous given the reprisals carried out by State authorities against Mr. Al-Awdah and his relatives. The Committee notes, in particular, the author’s allegation concerning the detention of the brother of Mr. Al-Awdah for trying to clarify the latter’s whereabouts. In view thereof, the Committee concludes that the remedies referred to by the State Party would not be effective or available in practice to the author and that article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the consideration of the present communication.
- Al-Adam v. Saudi Arabia, para. 10.4; Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 12.4; CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 34. ↩
The Committee notes that, according to the State Party, the communication is inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 12 (2) and (3) and 16, which are already encompassed within the claims raised under articles 5, 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Convention. The Committee also considers that the author’s claim under article 12 (4) of the Convention, which outlines the safeguards that must be present in a system of support in the exercise of legal capacity,29 is insufficiently substantiated, in the absence of indications that Mr. Al-Awdah is subject to such a support system. Furthermore, in view of the information on file, the Committee considers that the author has insufficiently substantiated his claim of the insufficiency of measures related to COVID-19 under articles 10, 14 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention, noting the absence of information regarding the sanitary conditions of Mr. AlAwdah’s detention. The Committee therefore finds that those claims are insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. In relation to the author’s claims invoked in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, the Committee notes that said provision specifies the purpose of the Convention but does not give rise to any obligations. Therefore, the Committee cannot admit the claims insofar as they are invoked in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.
- General comment No. 1 (2014), para. 20. ↩
The Committee considers, however, that the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purpose of admissibility, his remaining claims regarding the alleged violations of Mr. AlAwdah’s rights under articles 5 (1), (2) and (3), 10, 12 (1), 13 (1), 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25 of the Convention concerning his alleged arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearance, his conditions of detention, including the lack of reasonable accommodation and lack of provision of medical care, including for his vision and hearing, the alleged lack of due process guarantees during the proceedings against him, the alleged discrimination on the grounds of his disability and the prospect of being sentenced to death. In addition, the Committee considers that the author has raised, in substance, issues under article 29 (b) of the Convention, which it considers to be sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility.
In the absence of any other challenge to the admissibility of the communications, the Committee declares the communication as based on articles 5 (1)–(3), 10, 12 (1), 13 (1), 14, 15, 17, 21, 25 and 29 (b) of the Convention admissible insofar as it is sufficiently substantiated, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information that it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of the Committee’s rules of procedure.
The Committee notes the author’s claim of breaches of articles 5 (1), (2) and (3), 14 and 21 read alone and in conjunction with articles 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention, as he was arrested and subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention under the CounterTerrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act for his opposition to the Crown and thereby prevented from continuing his participation in political life. Noting the author’s claim that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested pursuant to the 2017 Counter-Terrorism and Financing of Terrorism Act, which was not yet in force at the time, the Committee also notes the State Party’s observation that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested under the Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing Act of 2013. The Committee further notes, however, that an arrest or detention may be authorized by domestic law and nonetheless be arbitrary.30 The notion of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law” but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.31
The Committee notes the author’s claims that Mr. Al-Awdah was arrested and detained on 9 September 2017 by State Security forces and that the State Party’s authorities did not acknowledge his detention until 26 December 2017, namely, more than two months after his arrest; that he was informed of the charges against him only on 4 September 2018; that the Specialized Criminal Court in charge of his case lacks independence as its members are appointed by the Government;32 that there has been no progress in the proceedings following a hearing held on 6 July 2021; and that regular family visits have not been allowed. The Committee notes the State Party’s affirmation that Mr. Al-Awdah was informed of the charges against him on the day of his detention. The Committee notes, however, that the account of the charges against Mr. Al-Awdah is dated 4 September 2018, and that the State Party has not provided any evidence in support of its argument. The Committee notes, moreover, that the State Party provides no documentation regarding the evidence held against Mr. Al-Awdah that would justify his detention33 or any concrete information on the progress of the trial since Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest and detention more than seven years ago. Noting the State Party’s negation of the claim that Mr. Al-Awdah is being detained for his political dissent, the Committee notes, nevertheless, that, according to a letter sent by special procedure mandate holders, the bulk of the charges against Mr. Al-Awdah and others was based on overly broad definitions of terrorism and other State security-related crimes that carried the potential for deliberate misuse and unintended human rights abuses.34 The Committee further notes that among the 37 charges against Mr. Al-Awdah are “inducing corruption on earth”, “calling for change in the Saudi government”, “calling for and inciting revolution in Saudi Arabia and support for revolutions in other Arab countries”, “describing the Kingdom’s authorities as tyrannical”, “praising the Turkish experience” and other charges that are vaguely defined or apparently relate to his exercise of his rights. In view thereof, the Committee considers that even if Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention had a basis in domestic law, it is arbitrary. Moreover, recalling that reasonable accommodation is an intrinsic part of the immediately applicable duty of non-discrimination in the context of disability, the Committee notes that no accommodation has been provided to Mr. Al-Awdah to ensure his effective access to complaint mechanisms taking into account his impairments, nor have steps been taken to monitor and investigate the breaches of his right to liberty and security and fair trial rights.35 The Committee also notes the author’s uncontested statement that Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention has precluded him from continuing his participation in political life. Considering the foregoing, the Committee finds that the State Party has breached Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights under articles 5 (1), (2) and (3), 14, 21 and 29 (b), read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, of the Convention.
- CAT/C/SAU/CO/2 and CAT/C/SAU/CO/2/Corr.1, para. 17. ↩
- Alakuş v. Türkiye (CCPR/C/135/D/3736/2020), para. 10.3; Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.3. ↩
- AL SAU 12/2017. ↩
- General comment No. 6 (2018), para. 23; guidelines on the right to liberty and security of persons with disabilities (A/72/55, annex), para. 19. ↩
The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State Party subjected Mr. Al-Awdah to enforced disappearance. The Committee recalls that enforced disappearance constitutes a single, integrated group of acts that represents a continuing violation of various rights, including the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to liberty and security of person.36 The Committee also recalls that enforced disappearance represents a paradigmatic violation of the right to be recognized as a person before the law.37 The Committee notes the State Party’s observation that its authorities did not refuse to disclose the place of Mr. Al-Awdah’s arrest to his family and that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances decided to consider his case as clarified. However, the Committee notes that the State Party has not provided any specific explanation in response to the author’s argument that his family was denied any information on his fate and whereabouts until 26 December 2017, more than two months after his arrest and detention, thereby placing him outside the protection of the law. The Committee also notes that the State Party has not specifically responded to the author’s argument that charges brought against Mr. Al-Awdah’s brother, such as “sympathizing with his brother”, demonstrate the intimidation they have faced following their efforts to clarify his fate and whereabouts. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State Party subjected Mr. Al-Awdah to enforced disappearance, in breach of his rights under articles 10, 12 (1), 14 and 15, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, of the Convention.
- Ferhati and Ferhati v. Algeria (CCPR/C/135/D/3125/2018), para. 8.4; El Boathi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013), para. 7.4; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; and Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.4. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 58. ↩
- Al-Hawali v. Saudi Arabia, para. 13.4; and Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, general comment on the right to recognition as a person before the law in the context of enforced disappearances (A/HRC/19/58/Rev.1, para. 42), para. 1. ↩
The Committee notes the author’s claim of a violation of his rights under article 10 of the Convention, as he is at risk of being sentenced to death and such a sentence could be carried out without prior notice and at any time. Noting that Mr. Al-Awdah remains on trial facing said charges, the Committee considers that he faces a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty.38 The Committee notes the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee according to which among the requirements of article 6 ( 2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is that capital punishment be imposed only for the most serious crimes, in circumstances not contrary to the Covenant and other instruments, and that it be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.39 However, the Committee shares the assessment by special procedure mandate holders that the charges against Mr. Al-Awdah do not reach said threshold.40 The Committee notes the pronouncement by the Human Rights Committee that under no circumstances can the death penalty ever be applied as a sanction against conduct the very criminalization of which violates the Covenant.41 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State Party would violate Mr. Al-Awdah’s rights under article 10 of the Convention by sentencing him to the death penalty.
The Committee notes the author’s claim of a violation of Mr. Al-Awdah’s right to access to justice under article 13 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14, of the Convention. The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that its laws guarantee a fair and public trial before an independent and impartial judiciary. However, the Committee notes that, despite the author’s argument regarding Mr. Al-Awdah’s loss of at least half of his previous sight in both eyes, of more than half of his previous hearing and of his capacity for comprehension and attention during his detention, the State Party has not provided any information on measures taken to support Mr. Al-Awdah’s participation in his trial and to fulfil his due process rights taking into account his disabilities. The Committee also notes the author’s arguments that Mr. Al-Awdah was kept outside the protection of the law for a period of his detention, that most of his hearings are held without prior notice, secretly and in camera and that he did not have access to his file and was not informed of the charges against him until 4 September 2018, a year after he was detained. Therefore, the Committee finds that the State Party has breached his rights under article 13, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, of the Convention.
The Committee notes the author’s claim of breaches of articles 10 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3, 4, 5 (3) and 14 (2), of the Convention. The Committee recalls, in the light of article 25, read in conjunction with article 14 (2), of the Convention, that States Parties have a special responsibility to uphold human rights when prison authorities exercise significant control or power over persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty by a court of law.42 The Committee notes the author’s claims that Mr. Al-Awdah was denied medical and rehabilitative care, including until January 2018, when he had to be urgently hospitalized; that his family learned from medical prison staff that he had lost at least half of his previous sight in both eyes and more than half of his previous hearing; that it has become difficult for Mr. Al-Awdah to hear his relatives and to see their expressions during family visits; and that he acquired those impairments in detention. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that Mr. Al-Awdah is being held in solitary confinement, deprived of contact and of any means or tools to communicate his requirements. The Committee notes the State Party’s observation that Mr. Al-Awdah was medically examined upon his detention and several times thereafter, including in terms of orthopaedics, internal medicine, surgery and urology and for his eyes, heart, ears, nose and throat; that he receives all care necessary; and that all examinations had given “normal” results. However, the Committee notes the author’s argument that the information provided by the State Party is vague, incomplete and undated, does not respond specifically to the author’s allegations or explain what measures have been taken to prevent his impairments from worsening, and has not been accompanied by copies of medical reports. The Committee recalls again that the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State Party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State Party is in possession of the necessary information.43 The Committee considers, given the information at its disposal, that it has insufficient evidence before it to conclude that the lack of medical care provided constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Convention. However, given the degradation of Mr. Al-Awdah’s health and his acquisition of impairments in detention and noting that the State Party has not demonstrated that it provided the required medical care to Mr. Al-Awdah, the Committee considers that the State Party has also breached article 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f), 4, 5 (3) and 14, of the Convention.
The Committee notes the author’s claim that the conditions of Mr. Al-Awdah’s detention constitute breaches of articles 15 and 17, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3, 4 and 5 (3), of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the failure to adopt relevant measures and to provide sufficient reasonable accommodation when they are required by persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty may constitute a breach of articles 15 (2) and 17 of the Convention.44 The Committee also recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; and they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Committee notes that, according to the information on file, Mr. Al-Awdah’s family was only able to visit him five months into his detention and he was denied all contact with the outside world from May to November 2020. The Committee notes the author’s claims that Mr. Al-Awdah has spent several years in solitary confinement and that the authorities have subjected him to deprivation of natural light, sleep and medical assistance, sensory deprivation, continual blindfolding, shackling, handcuffing, prolonged interrogations, regular beatings and violent handling, deprivation of access to a bathroom and food, and being forced to damage his teeth opening food bags with his mouth. Recognizing the degree of suffering involved in prolonged isolation and the aforementioned treatment, and noting concerns raised by special procedure mandate holders that the allegations also seemed to indicate a prima facie violation of the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the Committee considers that the State Party has breached the rights of Mr. Al-Awdah under articles 15 and 17, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f), 4, 5 (3) and 14, of the Convention.45
C. Conclusions and recommendations
The Committee, acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State Party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5 (1)–(3), 10, 12 (1), 13, 14, 15, 21 and 29 (b), read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f) and 4, articles 15, 17 and 25, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (c) and (f), 4, 5 (3) and 14 of the Convention. The Committee therefore makes the following recommendations to the State Party:
(a) Concerning Mr. Al-Awdah, the State Party is under an obligation:
In accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 76 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State Party should submit to the Committee, within six months, a written response, including information on any action taken in the light of the present Views and the recommendations of the Committee.