Views of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated September 20, 2018 in the case of Munir al-Adam v. Saudi Arabia (communication No. 38/2016).
In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Saudi Arabia.
Subject matter: the use of torture, which led to disability; the imposition of the death sentence after an unfair trial.
Substantive issues: the death penalty; torture and ill-treatment, which have exacerbated existing problems related to disability; the right to access medical care during detention; incommunicado detention; the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court; the right to legal representation.
The Committee's legal position is that, in accordance with article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention [on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities], no one should be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and States parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to ensure that persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, are not have been subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee recalls that when a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 15 is received, the State party must investigate it promptly and impartially (paragraph 11.2 of the Views).
The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty should not experience other deprivations and hardships than those that are an inevitable consequence of deprivation of liberty; and that their treatment should comply, in particular, with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) (paragraph 11.3 of the Views) (See Committee on human rights, Krumi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011), paragraph 8.8.).
The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, States parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including by providing for procedural and age-appropriate adjustments to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants. This implies respect for all components of the right to a fair trial, including the right to be represented and not to be subjected to any direct or indirect physical or inappropriate psychological pressure from investigative authorities in order to obtain confessions (Berry v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/50/D/330/1988), paragraph 11.7; and Singarasa v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001), paragraph 7.4.).... The Committee recalls that in cases where the death penalty may be involved, it is not necessary to prove that the accused must have the effective assistance of a lawyer at all stages of the trial and that information obtained as a result of torture should never be used as evidence (paragraph 11.4 of the Views).
In accordance with article 4, the State party also has an obligation to promote effective access to justice for all persons with disabilities without discrimination on the basis of their disability... The Committee recalls that the rights and obligations with regard to equality and non-discrimination provided for in article 5 raise specific considerations relating to article 13, which, among other things, refers to the need for procedural adjustments. These adjustments differ from reasonable accommodation, since procedural adjustments are not limited to the criterion of disproportionality (paragraph 11.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 25 (b) of the Convention, States parties are obliged to provide those health services that are necessary for persons with disabilities directly because of their disability, including early diagnosis, and, where appropriate, services designed to minimize and prevent the further occurrence of disability. In the light of this provision, considered in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee recalls that States parties have a special responsibility to respect human rights in cases where prison authorities exercise serious control or have power over persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty by court order (paragraph 11.6 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the complaints under article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that the author was subjected to physical and psychological pressure from the first day of his detention by several police and prison officers who tried to force him to admit his guilt, and that these acts of torture led to complete hearing loss in his right ear.... The Committee notes that, despite clear indications that the author was subjected to torture and related complaints from his relatives and representatives, the State party has not provided information proving that its authorities conducted an effective investigation of these specific allegations. The Committee notes that none of these allegations have been refuted by the State party. In these circumstances, the Committee decides that due consideration should be given to the author's allegations and concludes that the facts presented to him reveal a violation of his rights under article 15 of the Convention (paragraph 11.2 of the Views).
The Committee notes that the State party has not disputed the information concerning the conditions of the author's detention in solitary confinement and the abuse, violence and torture to which he was subjected.... He considers that the treatment to which the author was subjected during his detention constitutes a violation of his right to humane treatment with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and may amount to abuse and violence in violation of article 16 of the Convention (paragraph 11.3 of the Views).
The Committee... Took note of the author's claim under article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention [on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] that: (a) he was tortured and forced to admit his guilt, and that his confession was used by the courts to convict him and sentence him to death, despite the petitions of the author's relatives and representatives that this evidence should not be used in the case, as it was obtained under torture; and (b) He did not have access to a lawyer until September 2016, when he was allowed to appoint him to represent his interests at the Special Criminal Court in Riyadh, but was prohibited from contacting him (paragraph 11.4 of the Considerations).
In the author's case, the State party is therefore obliged to ensure that all necessary procedural adjustments are made for his effective participation in the process, taking into account his hearing impairment. The Committee notes that, according to available information, the State party has not taken any measures in this regard. The Committee thus concludes that the State party has violated the author's rights under article 13, paragraph 1, considered separately and in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention (paragraph 11.5 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusion: the State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 13, paragraph 1, considered separately and in conjunction with articles 4, 15, 16 and 25 of the Convention (paragraph 12 of the Views).