By Louise Price[1] and Haydee Dijkstal[2]
On 10 July 2024, the Abu Dhabi Federal Appeals Court issued convictions and severe sentences in the United Arab Emirates second largest mass trial to date – prosecuting in mass 84 individuals recognised by leading human rights organisations to be members of civil society, including human rights defenders and political dissidents.[3] During the Federal Appeals Court’s hearing, which is reported to have lasted seven minutes, the Court issued severe sentences including life imprisonment for 43 of the accused.[4]
News of the convictions and severe sentences raises important issues of the rule of law in the UAE and revives previously expressed concerns about systematic human rights violations and the use of anti-terrorism laws to repress freedom of thought, expression and association. These issues were examined on the sidelines of the 56th Session of the United Nations Human Right Council[5] during an event hosted by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) and held days before the UAE court’s sentencing.[6]
Concerns for the rule of law in the UAE, as raised during the BHRC’s side-event and addressed further below,[7] warrant wider examination and attention to the human rights and other international norms impacted during this trial. It is also critical to consider how this trial is emblematic of wider concerns on the rule of law in the UAE.
- The use of anti-terrorism law to restrict free expression and association
The trial (known as ‘UAE84’) concerned charges on the formation of an independent advocacy group over a decade ago in 2010/2011 which were issued during the UAE’s hosting of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in December 2023.[8] The UAE’s 2014 Counter Terrorism laws were used to issue the charges which accused the 84 defendants of associating and organising to advocate for political reforms and to sign a 2011 petition calling for a democratic parliament in the UAE – actions the authorities characterised as organising and associating “for the purpose of committing acts of violence and terrorism on UAE soil.”[9]
When issued in December 2023, the charges in the ‘UAE84’ case prompted statements of concerns from both UN experts and a group of human rights organisations on the use of terrorism laws – particularly given that many of the accused in the ‘UAE84’ case were previously tried and imprisoned under the same laws, and for similar charges, in UAE’s largest mass trial of 94 individuals (known as ‘UAE94’).[10] Alarm was sounded at the possibility of severe sentences for acts amounting to the exercise of fundamental rights by civil society and government critics – a concern that proved founded by the 10 July issuance of 43 life sentences.[11]
At the heart of these concerns was the use of anti-terrorism laws to restrict and suppress peaceful political discourse and association by criminalising the exercise of the fundamental right to free expression and association. Indeed, a review by Human Rights Watch of the allegations assessed that the UAE applied “abusive” counter terrorism laws which criminalise such organisation with severe punishments such as life sentences or the death penalty.[12]
Concern for the misuse of counter terrorism laws has been recognised before the UN and in regards to many of the accused persons in the ‘UAE84’ mass trial who were also tried in the ‘UAE94’ trial. For example, in a decision concerning the ‘UAE94’ mass trial, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recognised this problem; calling the laws “extremely vague and broad” with the “consequence that: ‘Legitimate democratic opposition … becomes a victim in the application of such laws’”, and finding that the accused (on whose behalf the complaint was raised) were arbitrarily detained as a result of “their exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[13] It recalls the Working Group’s expressed position that “expressing criticism of one’s country and its leaders and communicating with other political actors in a peaceful way should not be categorized as an attempt to overthrow a Government.”[14]
It similarly raises concern that both the ‘UAE84’ and ‘UAE94’ trials represent acts of discrimination against those who have political views that diverge from the official government discourse. Here discrimination based on status and because of their work as lawyers or human rights defenders might be applicable. When detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other views.
This is reinforced by concerns over double jeopardy given that many tried in the ‘UAE84’ case and convicted in 2013 have now been convicted this month for similar charges in the ‘UAE94’ case.[15] Worry over discrimination and targeting of human rights defenders and government critics is further supported by the fact that some sentenced in 2013 following the ‘UAE94’ trial have been held past the expiry of their sentence for ‘counselling.’ Human Rights organisations raised alarm at the use of provisions within the 2014 counter terrorism laws which allow the public prosecution to request that a person deemed to have adopted extremist or “terrorist thought” be placed in counselling centres at the end of their sentence with no time limit on this continued detention.[16] Such detention should be examined as being without legal basis and in contravention of provisions of due process and retroactivity under international law.[17]
- Fair trial concerns
With these noted criticisms and concerns on the foundational bases of the charges for the recent ‘UAE84’ trial – as well as the previous 2013 ‘UAE94’ trial – it is notable that monitoring of the conduct of the mass trials also brought commentary on irregularities and gross unfairness of the process.
The right to a fair trial and due process is enshrined in international law with strong arguments that the right rises to the level of customary international law. In particular, the UAE is obligated to ensure the rights and protections set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948, including rights regarding fair trials and due process in Articles 10 and 11. The UAE must also follow the guidance provided in the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Mandela Rules, agreed before the General Assembly of the UN as essential principles for the treatment and management of prisoners.[18]
Yet, despite these international protections, the ‘UAE84’ trial has been recognised as failing to guarantee these rights. Amnesty International has called the ‘UAE84’ trial a “sham trial” and “a shameless parody of justice.”[19] The human rights group, and others, pointed to a number of irregularities within the trial.[20] This includes:
- Secrecy: Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that a “public hearing” is inherent to a fair trial,[21] reports have highlighted the secret and private nature of the proceedings, including that the “indictment, the charges, the defence lawyers and even the names of defendants have been kept secret” and only partially known through leaks. The secret nature of the trial is so severe that it only became known to human rights groups and journalists a month after it began on 7 December. Yet there is no justification provided for the public’s exclusion to details of the trial as international norms require.[22]
- Restricted access to trial materials: It has been long established that the right to adequate facilities to prepare for the defence in a trial includes the right to see the evidence that is both incriminating and exculpatory. Applicable to the UAE, the UDHR requires that an accused person is afforded “all the guarantees necessary for his defence” and the Mandela Rules provide details on how a defendant shall be afforded adequate time and facilities, including through access to a lawyer, to prepare a defence.[23]However, reports state that defence lawyers have been prevented access to case materials and information.[24]
- Prolonged solitary confinement: International protections prohibit conditions of detention which place an individual in solitary and incommunicado detention. Rule 43 of the Mandela Rules provides that “indefinite” and “prolonged solitary confinement” “shall be prohibited.”[25] Yet, trial monitors and families of the accused have reported that “Defendants have been held in prolonged solitary confinement, deprived of contact with their families and lawyers.”[26]
- Lack of an independent and impartial judiciary: Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and of the judges overseeing and adjudicating a trial, is fundamental to a fair trial and due process. While the UDHR demands an independent and impartial tribunal as essential for a fair trial, this protection is further clarified in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.[27] Reports state that the ‘UAE84’ trial involved infringements to the norm of impartiality of the judges – by way of interference by judges in witness evidence during hearings and asking witnesses to read prepared scripts.[28]
These fair trial and due process violations which preceded the severe sentence announced on 10 July 2024, including life sentences for 43 of the accused, contribute to conclusions that “[i]t is not just the verdict, but the whole case that makes a mockery of the rule of law”.[29]
- Wider context and concerns
The recent ‘UAE84’ trial does not stand alone as a ‘one-off’ or rogue instance of unfair trials in the UAE, but must be viewed alongside consistent reports which suggest that the trial is emblematic of wider concerns on the rule of law in the UAE.
For one, the gross unfairness of ‘UAE84’ trial which culminated in the 10 July 2024 severe sentences, and the violations of fair trial and due process rights reviewed above, directly mirror the violations reported in the ‘UAE94’ and its convictions and sentences of 2013. This previous mass trial was monitored by a coalition of leading and internationally known human rights organisations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, Alkarama, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights which reported on similar severe fair trial and due process violations of the 94 accused’s rights.[30] This included denial of legal assistance, in absentia proceedings, inability to appeal the trial verdict, prolonged incommunicado detention, secret hearings, inability to present a defence case or call witnesses, denial of the presumption of innocence, detention in undisclosed locations and torture.
Beyond this, human rights groups as well as governments have reported ‘significant human rights issues’ such as “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees.”[31] The independence of the judiciary has also been consistently raised – under the UN’s Special Procedures as far back as 2014 and extending to the UAE’s 2023 UPR cycle.[32] This includes concerns on interference and impartiality in judicial proceedings resulting from the lack of separation between the judiciary and executive branch. [33]
As to concerns about the use of counter terrorism laws to repress free expression and association of civil society, human rights defenders and government critics, this issue was also highlighted in the UAE’s 4th cycle before the Universal Periodic Review which examined the UAE’s human rights record in May 2023. Notably, dozens of UN Member States made recommendations that the UAE address violations to the right to free expression and association and to protections of human rights defenders, raising in particular the pattern of prosecutions and misuse of counter terrorism laws.[34] As an extension, UN Special Rapporteurs and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,[35] as well as human rights organisations,[36] have expressed concern about the Arab Interior Ministers’ Council (a specialised Ministerial Council of the League of Arab States) and it’s member states, including the UAE, seeking the extradition of individuals wanted for charges under these counter terrorism laws through steps which circumvent domestic extradition procedures and international protections.[37]
- Increased attention to compliance with international obligations
The recent convictions and sentences handed down in the ‘UAE84’ case are a reminder of these wider issues which continue to impact the rule of law in the UAE. It illustrates the need for increased attention to reported violations.
While difficult realities about the state of the rule of law in the UAE were plainly highlighted during the BHRC’s side-event in Geneva, so too were practical necessities for confronting the issues. Continued monitoring of the irregularities and international pressure for compliance with international norms are key, alongside the utilisation of applicable accountability avenues such as universal jurisdiction coupled with a commitment to enforcing the UAE’s obligations under international law.
[1] Louise Price, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers, and BHRC Executive Committee member.
[2] Haydee Dijkstal, Barrister, 33 Bedford Row Chambers, and BHRC Executive Committee member.
[3] See, Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences’, 10 July 2024.
[4] Middle East Eye, ‘UAE84: 43 defendants sentenced to life in second-largest trial in UAE history’, 10 July 2024.
[5] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 56th Session, 18 June – 12 July 2024.
[6] See, BHRC ‘BHRC hosts HRC56 Panel on ‘Rule of Law in Jeopardy in the UAE’. To view a recording of the event, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjT5OqUaBY
[7] BHRC, ‘Rule of Law in Jeopardy in the UAE | BHRC Event Report,’ 18 July 2024.
[8] Middle East Eye, ‘Cop28: UAE slapped fresh charges on high-profile political prisoners during summit, says group,’ 11 December 2023.
[9] Emirates News Agency – WAM, ‘UAE Attorney-General refers 84 defendants, mostly tied to terrorist organistion of Muslim Brotherhood’, to State Security Court, 6 January 2024.
[10] See, Middle East Eye, ‘ UAE84: 43 defendants sentenced to life in second-largest trial in UAE history’, 10 July 2024; UN Special Procedures, ‘United Arab Emirates: UN experts alarmed by new charges brought against civil society in UAE87 trial’, 19 January 2024; Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences’, 10 July 2024.
[11] See, UN Special Procedures, ‘United Arab Emirates: UN experts alarmed by new charges brought against civil society in UAE87 trial’, 19 January 2024; Amnesty International, ‘United Arab Emirates: Free all those on trial in UAE84 case and drop charges,’ 12 February 2024.
[12] Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences’, 10 July 2024.
[13] UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Opinion No 19/2023 concerning Omran Ali Hasan al-Radwan alHarithi, Abdullah Abdulqader Ahmad Ali al-Hajiri, Ahmed Yousef Abdullah al-Zaabi, Mohammed Abdulrazzaq Mohammed al-Siddiq, Husain Moneif al-Jabri, Hasan Moneif al-Jabri, Sultan Bin Kayed Mohammed al-Qasimi, Khalifa Hilal Khalifa Hilal al-Nuaimi, Ibrahim Ismail Ibrahim al-Yasi, Mohammed Abdullah al-Roken, Abdulsalam Mohammed Darwish al-Marzooqi and Fouad Mohammed Abdullah Hasan al-Hmadi (United Arab Emirates)’, A/HRC/WGAD/2023/19, 5 May 2023, paras. 56, 58.
[14] UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 60/2013, para. 21.
[15] Human Rights Watch, ‘The UAE’s Forgotten Mass Trial’, 9 July 2024.
[16] Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Detainees Held Beyond Sentences’, 12 April 2023; and Amnesty International, “UAE: Dissidents Who Served Sentences Still Behind Bars”, 30 May 2022.
[17] See, for example, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (although the UAE is yet to ratify the ICCPR), Art. 9, 15. See also, UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 35 – Article 9 (Liberty and security of person), CCPR/C/GC/35, 16 December 2014, para. 15.
[18] United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules), UN General Assembly Resolution 70/175, A/RES/70/175, 8 January 2016, p. 1.
[19] Amnesty International UK, ‘UAE: scores convicted in sham trial of ‘UAE84’’, 10 July 2024.
[20] Amnesty International UK, ‘UAE: scores convicted in sham trial of ‘UAE84’’, 10 July 2024; Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences’, 10 July 2024; and Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial of Rights Defenders’, 29 April 2024.
[21] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 10.
[22] See, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14 which states that “the press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public.” See also, Arab Charter on Human Rights, Art. 13(2) stating that “Trials shall be public, except in exceptional cases that may be warranted by the interest of justice in a society that respects human freedoms and rights.”
[23] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 10. See also, Mandela Rules, Rules 61, 93, 119, 120(1).
[24] Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences’, 10 July 2024.
[25] Mandela Rules, Rule 43.
[26] Amnesty International UK, ‘UAE: scores convicted in sham trial of ‘UAE84’’, 10 July 2024.
[27] See, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 10; and Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted 6 September 1985 by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985. See principle 2 which states “The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
[28] Human Rights Watch, ‘UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences’, 10 July 2024.
[29] Amnesty International UK, ‘UAE: scores convicted in sham trial of ‘UAE84’’, 10 July 2024.
[30] See, for example, FIDH, “United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed”, Judicial Observation Report, August 2013; Amnesty International, “UAE: Dissidents Who Served Sentences Still Behind Bars”, 30 May 2022; Amnesty International, “UAE: Nearly a decade of unjust imprisonment for ‘UAE-94’ dissidents”, 2 July 2021; Alkarama, “UAE: UNFAIR MASS TRIAL OF 94 DISSIDENTS”, 3 April 2013; Alkarama, “UAE: 7 YEARS SINCE THE UNFAIR TRIAL OF THE UAE94 GROUP”, 2 July 2020; and Gulf Centre for Human Rights, “United Arab Emirates: The Gulf Centre for Human Rights launches report, “Patterns of Torture in the UAE”, 11 February 2022.
[31] See, for example, United States Department of State, ‘2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: UAE’; and House of Commons Library, ‘United Arab Emirates (UAE): Introductory country profile’, 6 July 2022. See also, Amnesty International, ‘UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 2023’.
[32] See, UN Human Rights Council, UPR: UAE, ‘Compilation of information prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,’ A/HRC/WG.6/43/ARE/2, 1 March 2023, para. 31.
[33] See, for example, Reuters, ‘U.N. expert says UAE judicial system controlled by executive’, 5 February 2014.
[34] MENA Rights Group, ‘Universal Periodic Review: UN Member States urge UAE to protect human rights defenders, prohibit torture and uphold freedom of expression’, 17 May 2023.
[35] See, OHCHR – Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Ref.: OL OTH 71/2023, 23 June 2023.
[36] See, for example, MENA Rights Group, ‘Understanding the Arab Interior Ministers’ Council and its role in transnational repression’, 17 August 2023.
[37] Middle East Eye, ‘Fears grow businessman detained in Jordan extradited to UAE after going missing’, 18 May 2023; and Middle East Eye, ‘He went to Jordan to find a school for his son. Then he vanished’, 26 June 2023.
