The Second 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, May 17, 2010.

(Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

Further to our first press release published on March 22, 2010 about the proceedings of the case of the arbitrary arrest of several reform advocates on February 2, 2007 in the city of Jeddah, including our client, Sheikh Suliman Ibrahim Al-Reshoudi. A lawsuit has been filed on our client’s 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. The defense team would like to explain to those concerned the proceedings of the fifth court session, held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010. In that court hearing, the defense team presented a three-page legal memorandum, and the representative of the MOI (DGI) submitted a two-page memorandum to the court.

In the following points, we shed some light on the course of the trial:

First:   Due to the strength of our client’s position and the persistent of the defense team’s demands, MOI (represented by DGI) are still evading responding to the judicial committee, deliberately delaying, and ducking out of submitting an indictment list against our client. This conspicuous attitude confirms that Sheikh Suliman Al-Reshoudi has been arbitrarily detained, without court verdicts or legal justifications. Also MOI’s lawyer avoids answering several detailed legal memoranda presented by the defense team to the court.

Since the first session of the trial, the defense team has been demanding the court to order MOI to immediately release our client, and to provide an indictment to justify his long-term solitary confinement.  However,  MOI still evades responding to the court’s requests and the defense team’s demands.

The defendant’s style in procrastination and prevarication has been diversified. At the first court meeting, MOI’s lawyer did not attend, and he alleged to be non-receipt of the court documents at the second session. At the third hearing he challenged the court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating the case before it, and he challenged the defense-team legal bases in representing their client at the fourth court hearing.

We found it amazing what happened in the fifth court meeting, MOI’s lawyer alleged that he cannot provide a list of charges against Sheikh Suliman Al-Reshoudi because “the mentioned person’s entire file, including the charges against him, had been transferred to the Special Criminal Court  to try him according to the law”…!! An excuse we found too weak to be discussed here.

Second: Human rights activists and reformists are arbitrarily detained incommunicado, isolated from their families and the outside world, and deprived of their legitimate rights guaranteed by local and international law. The law states that the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, the right of the accused in a fair public trial, and the right to defend himself or hire lawyers. All that is denied to thousands who are detained unlawfully ..!!

As if the Interior Ministry sees itself above the law, that governs all sectors of the State in which MOI had also contributed to its preparation, as it exercises intimidation and fear vis-à-vis detainees, their families, and even activists in the field of human rights and political reform. Lawyers and community leaders are often time threaten so they do not exercise the role of the defense or even show sympathy with those detained unlawfully.

Third: It was expected in such a legal case that concerned public opinion to be given a deserved prominence, attention, and follow up by the court. In such high-profile cases, three professional judges must preside over the trial hearings as articulated by the (Grievances) court procedures.  However, only a single judge presided on the bench throughout previous sessions of the court trial; rather during the last court hearing, it was left to a lieutenant judge on training. When the defense team asked MOI’s attorney to respond to the previous memoranda, the presiding judge replied : “what do you call these papers? Are not they responses?”. The defense team then tried to draw the court’s attention that none of these responses discussed the substance of the matter, and presiding judge said the defense team’s legal memoranda are limited on topics.

Fourth: When the lieutenant judge saw the term “constitution” in the defense team’s legal memorandum, he said: “you are influenced by the West and the Egyptians and we are a country governed by Islamic law.” The presiding judge, furthermore,  demanded the removal of any reference to the Constitution.

            It’s no doubt unacceptable to deny the defense team the right to use phrases they consider appropriate to illustrate their point of view in the case at hand. Islamic scholars and reform advocates use these types of phrases without reservation or hesitation, and we hope judges sitting on the court bench accurately understand the dimensions of such jurisprudence and legal terms.

Fifth:  The presiding judge said that he studied the case records and did not find explicit mentioning of violations committed by MOI. That was something the defense team found surprising and perplexing especially that the case is still in the process of hearing, studying, and has not yet reached the stage of sentencing or judicial opinion. Moreover, the violations by the defendant are clear to the provisions of articles 26, 36 and 38 of the Saudi Basic Law of Governance issued by Royal Decree No. (A / 90) in March 2, 1992. In additions, violations to explicit texts of articles 2, 3, 4, 35, 101, 114, 116 and 119 of the Criminal Procedure issued by Royal Decree No. (m / 39) in October 16, 2001. It is also contrary to the basic principles of human rights.

Sixth:  The presiding judge asked the defense team about the Administrative (Grievances) court’s  jurisdiction in looking at this case. This case is clear, and it obviously falls within the court’s jurisdictions. The Grievances court has evidently a wider jurisdiction than the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC). This matter is explicitly articulated in article (123) of Saudi penal code which says: “if the accused is referred to a court, his release if detained or detention if not under arrest shall be within the jurisdiction of the court to which he has been referred.  If lack of jurisdiction is determined, the court rendering the judgment of lack of jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction to consider the release or detention request, pending the filing of the case with the competent court.” The defense team has emphasized the demand on the court to apply this article because it is explicit in the case of our client. Based on our client’s account, he has assured the defense team that he had no knowledge of any pending court trial.  For us, this was merely an attempt by the defendant’s attorney to stop the Grievances court from performing its role assigned to it to counter abuses by various governmental authorities.

Seventh: MOI’s lawyer tried to pressure the judge and said that the plaintiff did not authorize the self-appointed team to defend him in court…!!
The defendant’s lawyer deliberately Ignored the fact that this reveals a form of infringement on the rights of the accused by denying him the chance to give the power of attorney to the defense team. At the beginning of the court hearing, the judged asked all the defense team’s members to show their national identity cards and to state the places of their work. As the defendant’s lawyer attempted to challenge the legal bases of defense team, but the defense team countered by saying that the law that guaranteed the power of attorney to represent their client in court was issued by the cabinet, which is the legislative authority in the country.  While the bylaws, which prevent the State employees from defending their clients in court, was issued by the Ministry of Justice, and therefore this specific regulation cannot restrict the text of the general rules.

Moreover,  there are some members of defense team who are not government employees such as the lawyer Abdulaziz Mohammed Al-Wahaibi, whose power of attorney documents to represent Suliman Al-Reshoudi have been delivered to the court.

As the defense team announces the court proceedings of this case to the public, hopes for the following from judges, activists, and media outlets:

I:         We urge the Administrative (Grievances) court to take its historic stand to be added to its already known accomplishments in supporting the oppressed and, protecting the rights, and fighting the injustice. These systematic violations of fundamental principles of human rights by MOI in a form that unimaginable by any conscious mind. These flagrant human rights abuses must be rejected by men who are consciously aware, and we hope that court judges to be just and not to turn a blind eye on these blatant human rights violations. Otherwise, the widespread of this kind of abuses by the authorities will lead to many tragedies and misfortunes, the last of which is the Jeddah flood disaster which killed thousands of innocent soles and destroyed tens of billions worth of properties.   

II:        We call upon all human rights activists, advocates of reform and change, media outlets, local human rights associations, and international human rights organizations to stand in support of the oppressed and defending their rights. All of us must stand against these systematic infringements on the rights of the detainees, whose families are devastated, and those who are kept without reason behind prisons bars with no one to defend them vis-à-vis these abuses and to represent them in court.

III:      Since the law states that court trials must be public and open to those interested in attending, we expect the presence of rights activists and media personals. The next court meeting will be on Wednesday June 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM,  in the Fifth Administrative Circuit Court at the sixth floor at the Board of Grievances (Administrative Court) in Riyadh. A detailed call for action will be posted later on in our website, www.acpra5.org (www.ksarights.org from outside Saudi Arabia).

The defense team for the imprisoned human rights activist, Sheikh Suliman Ibrahim Al-Reshoudi:

1. Attorney Abdulaziz Mohammed Al-Wahabi, Mobile:+966555188867, email: azizmw@yahoo.com.

 
2. Mohammad Fahad Al-Qahtani, mobile :+966555464345, email : mqahtani@ksarights.org.

3. Fahd Abdulaziz Al-Orani, mobile :+966502566678, email : fahadalorani@gmail.com.

4. Fowzan Mohsen Al-Harbi, mobile:+966501916774, email: fowzanm@gmail.com.