The First Press Release
On the Court Proceedings of
the Lawsuit Filed by the Legal Defense Team of, the Arbitrarily Incarcerated Former Judge and Attorney, Suliman Ibrahim Al-Reshoudi, A Leading Human Right Activist and One of the Founders of the First Human Rights Organization in the Country (i.e., CDLR in 1993), Brought Against the Ministry of Interior Before the Fifth Administrative Circuit Court in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010.
(Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)
The legal defense team of Judge Suliman Ibrahim Al-Reshoudi, a leading human rights activist and a member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), would like to explain the course of the legal case filed on his behalf against the Ministry of Interior (MOI) -Directorate of General Investigations (DGI)- before the fifth administrative circuit court in Riyadh on Sunday, August 16, 2009.
Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi and other fellow civil rights leaders were arrested by DGI’s agents in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Friday, February 2, 2007. The other detained fellow activists are: Dr. Saud Mohammed Al-Hashemi, Professor Abdulrahrahman Al-Shomairy, Dr. Mousa Al-Qarni, Fahd Alskharee Al-Qurashi, Abdulrahman Bin Sadiq, Saifaldeen Faisal Al-Sharif, Ali Khosifan Al-Qarni. The Ministry of Interior, as usual, issued a misleading statement to the media about the real reasons for their arrest. Local human rights defenders have been waiting to see their colleague Suliman Al-Reshoudi and other fellow activists to be freed without a glimmer of hope or a flicker of optimism, with the exception of the release of Attorney Esam Basrawi and Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Khereiji because of their deteriorating health conditions.
Hence, some Saudi human rights activists decided to form legal defense teams to represent their leaders and fellow colleagues in courts. Based upon experience and the most practical methods, the legal representation work has been divided according to the detainees’ home cities. Jeddah detained residents (e.g., Professor Abdulrahman Al-Shomairy, Dr. Saud Al-Hashimi, Fahd Alskharee Al-Qurashi, and Abdulrahman Bin Sadiq) are legally represented by Attorney Waleed Sami Abualkhair. While Dr. Mohammed Fahad Al-Qahtani, Fahd Abdulaziz Al-Orini and Fowzan Mohsin Al-Harbi took upon themselves to defend Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi as a clear model for the rest of the detainees, because their case is the same and the injustice inflicted on them is too conspicuous.
After forming Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi’s legal defense team, they took the initiative to visit the Chief of the Investigative and Prosecution Bureau on Saturday, August 29, 2009. They presented a letter to the top prosecutor in accordance with article (39) of the Criminal Procedure Law which makes it anyone’ right, who knows unlawful prisoner or detainee, to immediately inform the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution. Then it is the bureau member’s duty to investigate, verify, and take the necessary actions based on the evidence. However, the chief prosecutor refused to accept the notification letter and rejected to even record it officially in a flagrant violation of the law of the land, his reason for the rejection is that the bureau has no authority over DGI’s prisons.
The defense team, then, sent a later of complaint to the Custodian of the Two Holly Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, in September 22, 2009, in protest of the injustice done to Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi. In August 16, 2009, the legal defense team filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior in the Administrative (Grievances) court in Riyadh recorded by the number (3299 / A / Q) for the year 2009, according to the court’s records.
The first court hearing was held on Monday (December 21, 2009), but MOI’s attorney did not attend the court, then it was decided to postpone the hearing until Wednesday, February 3, 2010. The defendant’s attorney attended the court hearing, the judge then asked the plaintiffs to plead their case before the court. The defense team presented their case, which could be summarized as: the defendant (MOI-DGI) arbitrarily arrested Judge Al-Reshoudi without official indictments, he has been deprived of his legal rights, and was not brought before a court. Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi, and his colleagues, have been held for more than three years in incommunicado detention in clear violations of the relevant articles of the Saudi Basic Law of Governance and the Law of Criminal Procedure.
Furthermore, the defense team demanded the immediate and unconditionally release of Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi. However, MOI’s attorney, the defendant, alleged that they have not received the legal memorandum and asked for time to read it and then be able to respond. Meanwhile, strangely enough DGI’ authority transferred all the detainees from Jeddah prison (Dhaban) to Riyadh prison (Alhair) on Wednesday, January 13, 2010, after the lawsuit has been filed. More strangely, too, DGI’s agents telephoned and informed the families about the transfer of their loved ones without presenting any further details to them.
In the meantime, the Minister of Interior issued a letter (no. 4833) in January 8, 2010,directed to the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution Chief to present the following alleged sixteen defendants to the Special Criminal Court (SCC): —
1) Dr. Saud Mohammed Al-Hashimi.
2) Judge Suliman Ibrahim Al-Reshoudi.
3) Professor Abdulrahman Al-Shomairy.
4) Attorney Dr. Mousa Mohammed Al-Qarni.
5) Saifaldeen Faisal Al-Sharif.
6) Fahd AlSkharee Al-Qurashi.
7) Abdulrahman Bin Sadiq.
8) Ali Khosifan Al-Qarni.
9) Saleh Ali Kassem Al-Rashidi.
10) Mo’tassem Waheed Mukhtar.
11) Walid Al-Omary.
12) Radah Sharif Al-Moghamsi.
13) Abdullah Al-Refai.
14) Khalid Al-Abbasi.
15) Abdullah Al-Qurashi.
16) Fawaz Ghoneim.
The head of the Investigation and Prosecution then issued another letter in January 13, 2010, No. (H 24 / 2824) contained all the names of the alleged sixteen defendants. We do not know why and how suddenly did the Chief of the Investigative and Prosecution Bureau hold the authority to transfer DGI’s prisoners to SCC trials without conducting the investigations and monitoring their detention conditions. This dysfunctional relationship has long been raised by Saudi reformers in their repeated statements, namely, the subordination of the Investigation and Prosecution Bureau to the Ministry of Interior rather than the judicial authority. This unhealthy relation has resulted in the deviation of the bureau from its original goals for which it was established.
At the third court meeting in February 27, 2010, the defendant (the Ministry of Interior -DGI) tried to rely on the two above-mentioned letters to challenge the presiding court’s jurisdiction in order to dismiss the lawsuit. But the court did not pay any attention to the request of the defendant and continued the proceedings, and asked the representative of the Ministry of Interior to answer the plaintiffs’ claim.
At the same court meeting in February 27, 2010, the Ministry of Interior presented a two-page legal memorandum alleging that the actions taken against those involved are legally correct and no violation to the law, MOI’s lawyer then called upon the court to throw out the case because all detainees will be tried in the SCC. The court then handed the defendant’s legal memorandum and its annexes to the plaintiffs (Reshoudi’s defense team).
After studying the MOI’s legal memorandum, the Reshoudi’s defense team presented another legal memorandum at the fourth court meeting held on Saturday, March 20, 2010. Once again the Interior Ministry evaded plaintiffs’ claim and failed to provide to the court a list of charges against Judge Suliman Al-Reshoudi and his colleagues. The MOI’s lawyer tried to circumvent the plaintiffs’ demand by an attempt to challenge the legal ground for the defense team, after failing to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. What makes matters worse is the deliberate intention of MOI’s lawyer to hide the name of the Defendant (MOI-DGI) by handing out legal memoranda on white plain papers. There are no reference whatsoever to the Ministry of Interior or the Directorate of General Investigations, what only written on the top of their handed-out papers is “Department of Legal Affairs.” Furthermore, the MOI’s attorney has an arrogant tone of superiority when he addresses the court, in many instances he tried to disparage the trial and question the integrity of the court.
The court judicial committee, however, was aware of MOI’s lawyer attempt to throw out the case based on technicalities, and no attention was given to his repeated objections. Judges early on have realized the importance of the case presented before them based on its merits and the ramifications of the trial which would be closely followed domestically and internationally. Therefore, the court insisted on the defendant (MOI’s lawyer) to respond to the plaintiffs’ claim on writing, and the judge handed the legal memorandum (with its 6 annexes) to the defendant. The preceding judge then instructed MOI’s lawyer to bring his written response along with the list of alleged charges against Al-Reshoudi and his colleagues to the next court meeting scheduled on Wednesday April 28, 2010 , which is expected to be a public hearing opened to the public according to the principle of court publicity.
************************************************************************
The defense team, as it issues this public statement, would urge media outlets (which is the fourth authority), human rights bodies, and non-government human rights organizations to take upon themselves the defense of these detainees against this conspicuous injustice. Combating injustice, speaking faithfully against oppression, and standing by the oppressed should be their sole duties; which is also what people expect from them.
Especially that these detainees have sacrificed their comfort, liberty, freedom, and families’ rights in order to defend our freedom of speech, expression, assembly, movement, and action. Their sacrifices are also directed at lifting oppression of all the people, and especially freedom of thoughts and writings.
It is an obligation upon all of us, and not a choice, to defend their rights vis-à-vis injustice. In fact, it is an inevitable obligation.
In that, people should compete with each others.
The silence of the scholars, jurists and intellectuals in general and human rights advocates in particular, about such issues, will make the repression mill destroy all activists whenever their turn comes.
The legal defense team of Judge Suliman Ibrahim Al-Reshoudi