The case is "Abdulrahman Ahmed al-Hawali Alhamdi v. Saudi Arabia." Views of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated July 9, 2024.
In 2020, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Saudi Arabia.
Message No. 84/2020. The author of the message was Abdulrahman Ahmed al-Hawali Alhamdi, who acted on behalf of his disappeared uncle, who was 70 years old at the time of submission of the message. The Committee found a violation of certain provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The legal position of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: arrest or detention may comply with domestic legislation, but nevertheless be arbitrary. The concept of "arbitrariness" should not be equated with the concept of "illegality", but should be interpreted more broadly, including elements of unacceptability, injustice, unpredictability and non-compliance with procedural guarantees, along with elements of expediency, necessity and proportionality (paragraph 13.2 of the Considerations).
Reasonable accommodation is an integral part of the duty not to discriminate in the context of disability, which requires immediate implementation (paragraph 13.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considers that, although the term "enforced disappearance" does not explicitly appear in any of the articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enforced disappearance is a unique complex set of actions that constitute a continuing violation of several rights enshrined in this treaty, for example, the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as the right to freedom and personal integrity. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also notes that enforced disappearance constitutes a textbook violation of the right to recognition of legal personality (paragraph 13.4 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls that, in accordance with article 13 (paragraph 1) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, States parties 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. In accordance with article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the State party also has an obligation to promote effective access to justice for all persons with disabilities without discrimination on the basis of disability. In this context, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities notes that the rights and obligations regarding equality and non-discrimination listed in article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities raise specific concerns regarding article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which, inter alia, states the need for procedural adjustments. These adjustments differ from reasonable accommodation, since procedural adjustments are not limited to the criterion of disproportionality (paragraph 13.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities draws attention to the fact that States parties have a special responsibility to respect human rights in cases where prison authorities exercise serious control over persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty by court order or have significant power over them (paragraph 13.6 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recalls that failure to take appropriate measures and provide adequate and reasonable accommodations when they are required by persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty may constitute a violation of articles 15 (paragraph 2) and 17 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also points out that persons deprived of their liberty should not experience other hardships and hardships than those resulting from deprivation of liberty; their treatment should comply, in particular, with the Rules of Nelson Mandela (paragraph 13.7 of the Views).
Assessment by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the factual circumstances of the case: it was noted that even if Mr. Al-Hawali's detention had been carried out in accordance with domestic law, his detention, treatment by the authorities and delays in confirming his whereabouts and conducting court proceedings were unacceptable, unjustified and unjustified. In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considered that Mr. Al-Hawali's detention was arbitrary (paragraph 13.3 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that Mr. Al-Hawali was not provided with any facilities to ensure his effective access to complaint mechanisms, given his speech problems, or to identify and investigate violations of his right to liberty and security of person and the right to a fair trial (paragraph 13.3 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has taken note of the author's indisputable claim that State party representatives detained Mr. Al-Hawali on 12 July 2018 and that the State party did not inform his family of his fate and whereabouts until 17 September 2018, that is, for more than two months, as a result of which he ended up outside the protection of the law (paragraph 13.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has taken into account the author's indisputable arguments that, due to his violations, Mr. al-Hawali could not express his thoughts or be understood, and the State party's authorities did not take any measures that would allow him to appear before the judicial authorities and file complaints (paragraph 13.5 of the Views).
Given the deteriorating state of Mr. Al-Hawali's health and the worsening violations in his detention conditions, as well as the lack of information on the provision of necessary medical care and treatment, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities decided that the State party had violated the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (paragraph 13.6 of the Views).
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities noted that, according to the information contained in the case file, the lack of reasonable accommodation and restrictions on visits led to the isolation of Mr. Al-Hawali in custody, including in terms of court proceedings and communication with family members (paragraph 13.7 of the Views).
Conclusions of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the State party has not fulfilled its obligations under certain provisions of the Convention.