|
Friday, April 10th, 2009.
To the Custodian of the Two Holly Mosques King Abdullah Bin
Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud
In the past few weeks, several media outlets reported a
beginning of secret tribunes for hundreds of alleged-Saudi
terrorists (991 defendants); for that purpose, several ad hoc
security courts have been established under the auspices of the
Saudi justice system. The names of the accused, their
indictments, their names of judges, exact dates and times of
courts should have been announced; however, that did not happen
and judges unfortunately went on with absolute secret-court
proceedings. The presiding judges may have been under the
illusion that justice would be best served under secrecy and
they thought that it is within their discretions to try the
accused citizens behind closed doors. We have waited for a long
time hoping that some other human-right concerned groups would
blow the whistle and bring the case to the world’s intention, to
be only disappointed by the complete oblivion of Saudi
organizations and intellectuals. It seems to us as if the
Ministry of Interior decided that those allegedly involved in
violent acts or terrorism have no right and anyone who defends
them is as guilty as they are, hence their attorneys can easily
be accused of being accomplices or traitors.
For these reasons we are calling for public and fair trials
because otherwise it is impossible to find justice especially
whenever such an authoritarian government is strongly involved
in the case; in addition, a clot of secrecy will grant the
government carte blanches to pass tough verdicts agonist
helpless and powerless defendants. From this scenario, we
declare that secret tribunals are not only unjust but also
confiscate the basic rights of the accused, hence we contest the
legal bases of any rendered judgments that resulted out of these
“Security Courts.” Moreover, we also take this opportunity to
remind everyone that violence and terrorism can be obliterated
by applying injustice, but rather by respecting the rule of law
and closely following legal procedures.
We, furthermore, take this opportunity to remind everyone that
fair trails have certain measures and procedures that guarantee
justice and protect rights, and there are more than twenty
justifications that prove our case. The strongest among these
reasons is that even if these secret proceedings have violated
the fundamental principle of transparency, but have also denied
defendants their basic rights as granted by the Islamic
jurisprudence, and as prescribed by international conventions
particularly the standards for judiciary independence and human
rights. The Saudi statute (i.e., Criminal Procedure Law) states
that accused individuals have seven basic rights that must be
maintained:
-
During
the investigation, the accused shall have the right to seek
the assistance of a representative or an attorney. (Article
64)
-
Any accused person shall have the right to seek the
assistance of a lawyer or a representative to defend him
during the investigation and trial stages. (Article 4)
-
The Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution shall conduct
its investigation and prosecution in accordance with its Law
and the implementing regulations thereof. (Article 14)
-
In cases that require detention for a longer period, the
matter shall be referred to the Director of the Bureau of
Investigation and Prosecution to issue an order that the
arrest be extended for a period or successive periods none
of which shall exceed thirty days and their aggregate shall
not exceed six months from the date of arrest of the
accused. Thereafter, the accused shall be directly
transferred to the competent court, or be released. (Article
114)
-
An arrested person shall not be subjected to any bodily
or moral harm. Similarly, he shall not be subjected to any
torture or degrading treatment. (Article 2)
-
No penal punishment shall be imposed on any person except in
connection with a forbidden and punishable act, whether
under Shari’ah principles or under the statutory laws, and
after he has been convicted pursuant to a final judgment
rendered after a trial conducted in accordance with Shari’ah
principles. (Article 3)
-
Court hearings shall be public. The court may exceptionally
consider the action or any part thereof in closed hearings,
or may prohibit certain classes of people from attending
those hearings for security reasons, or maintenance of
public morality, if it is deemed necessary for determining
the truth. (Article 155)
Court Trials’ publicity is one of the international standards
for judiciary independence because it helps impartial judges to
withstand pressures and resist possible interventions during
court hearings of the accused Persons. Publicity also protects
judges and exposes transgressors.
Since political prisoners, in general, should have more rights
and neither more harassments nor more tortures, hence the
publicity of court hearings would protect, especially political,
defendants’ basic rights against a totalitarian government which
they oppose,
Since the Saudi justice system does not stem from general role
of popular oversight of the nation over its rulers, and since
the Saudi judiciary has no independent authority,
Since the Saudi judiciary system has no written laws, legal
procedures or precedents for political cases,
Since the Saudi judiciary system constantly abuses human rights
and severally punishes activists,
Since secret tribunals are pretexts for confiscating and abusing
prisoners’ rights and to cloak tortures,
Since there is no guarantee against extracting confessions
through coercion in secret trials,
Since the Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution falls
under the jurisdictions of the Interior Minister comes as a
declaration to the world community that the Saudi Judiciary is
neither fair nor just,
Since the Saudi justice system accepts or justifies tortures,
and since secret trials will definitely cover up courts’
admittance and ratifications of coerced confessions, and since
justice is a comprehensive principle if it’s divided then it
will lose its superior value,
Since justice will not be guaranteed unless the judiciary
system has oversights of prisons,
Since court hearings publicity limits arbitrary false criminal
accusations,
Since the Ministry of Interior has the ultimate discretions
vis-à-vis the accused, as it wishes to try him (her) in courts
of law or let the defendants languish in prisons without
verdicts,
Since secret tribunals, in addition to their flagrant violation
of the principle of popular oversights, obscure people’s
understanding of the root causes of violence which are political
oppressions and congestions; and instead, the authority has
resorted to security solutions which deals with the symptoms
rather than the root cause. Although deep inside, they know that
obliterating violence requires structural political solutions.
These justifications prove beyond reasonable doubts that it’s
not within judges’ discretions to turn political trials into
security tribunals.
Unfortunately, as the Saudi legal system engages in flamboyant
human-right abuses, it at the same time distorts the images of
Islamic jurisprudence.
(A 25-page legal memorandum has been attached with the Arabic
version of this petition that proves beyond any reasonable
doubts that secret-court trials are building blocks in the
structure of a police state as the root cause of extremism,
violence, and terrorism)
Recommendations and Demands:
First:
We ask the Custodian of the Two Holly Mosques to put his words
“I’ll smash the head of transgression by the sword of justice”
into actions, by establishing a practical and institutional due
process that guarantees fair court trails for all prisoners,
especially the aforementioned seven basic rights. The state must
adhere to clear and specific standards of principles- as
prescribed in the Islamic jurisprudence, practiced in
constitutional countries, and defined by scholars of political
sociology- to reach a clear definition of political crimes,
anti-state rebellious warfare, and a judicial and practical due
process for punishments.
Second:
We would like take this opportunity to remind his Majesty that
there is an increasing relationship between extremism and
official and societal violence. In that note, the advocates of
human rights and civic society denounce violence as means to
reach or continue a tight grip on power, and would like to
emphasize two points:
1.
The root cause of terrorism is political reasons: despotism,
injustice, human-right abuses, and oppression; and resorting to
a religious discourse to sugarcoat politics has driven society
toward extremism and violence. This type of mindsets and
activities only flourish in dictatorial states.
2.
Our emphasis on the denunciation of violence and extremism does
not mean they will end by issuing religious edicts because when
people become deeply disappointed then society as a whole starts
boiling and congesting like a volcano that is going to erupt
with no need for any further impetus. Sometimes due to naivety
and credulity, people may believe that violence is going to
cease but that will never happen unless the state root out the
real causes of violence: oppression, injustice, and absence of
liberty and freedom. We believe that the carpet would not be
pulled from under the feet of violence unless the state adopts a
constitution that nurture the growth of civic society
institutions, as the only way that leads toward the
establishment of a modern and democratic state. As a reminder of
a political wisdom which, we are afraid, is applicable to our
situation that summarized by a statement by the late American
president John F. Kennedy, who warned in early 1960s that:
“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible will make
violent revolutions inevitable.”
Therefore, we remind everyone that using police brutalities only
results in negligence to other components of violence, hence
exaggerating security solutions-without political reforms-will
distort peoples’ awareness and ultimately result in swallowing
the bitter medicine.
Third:
For these reasons, we remind everyone that political reform is
the only solution for extremism and violence and we look forward
to the establishment of, what advocates called, “the fourth
Saudi State” as a beacon for democracy and human rights. We ask
his majesty, may God guide us all to the right path, to
implement his promised reform initiatives by establishing a
modern state built on democracy, justice, dignity, equality,
tolerance, pluralism, and citizens’ rights. We ask the following
constitutional reforms:
1.
Ensuring judiciary independent, as called for by advocates of
democracy and human rights, especially the seven criteria of
fair court trails namely publicity as effective solutions to
limiting violence and counter violence because they are two
faces of the same coin.
2.
Permission to establish unions, non-government organizations,
and other forms of assembly; people must have the rights to
engage in cultural, social, economic, scientific, legal, and
political associations. This requires a speedy promulgation of
NGOs’ regulations.
3.
We emphasize Islamic tolerance, equality, and equal opportunity
as the only cure of violence, in order to establish the
principle of tolerance we must ascertain cultural and political
pluralisms.
4.
Establishing an elected parliament that ensures people’s
oversight over the government.
5.
Establishing independent commissions and watchdog groups that
have the mandates to mentor and hold any individual, with no
exception, accountable.
6.
Separating the three authorities, i.e., the executive,
judiciary, and legislative branches.
7.
Amending the Allegiance Committee’s law by adding a critical
article that stresses the rule of the elected body (the
parliament) in the process, hence, the choice of the future
crown price will be left for the choice of both the Allegiance
Committee and the elected parliament. As for the benefits of
such a procedure:
A.
It limits unhealthy competitions and blocks venues that may lead
to overt and covert conflicts.
B.
It manifests legitimacy so we would have a practical and
workable concept of democratization.
C.
It groups both choices of the people and ruling family which
will result in political stability and durability of the regime,
because alienating the people from the political process would
turn the country into a family’s business. To the contrary,
enfranchising people would lead to healthy competitions to best
served the citizens, strengthen the ruler-people relationships,
and it becomes within crown price’s credentials.
D.
It will executes the principle of “ who is best fit” as stated
in the Saudi Arabia’s Basic System of Governance with accordance
to specific standards and applicable procedures, otherwise the
“best-fit” concept would be meaningless.
8.
Limiting the terms of appointed royal family’s members in
government posts by developing procedures to prevent
their-direct and indirect-dominance on the kernels of the
economy through tight controls over contracts and government’s
projects. Moreover, we demand crafting new laws that would
ensure equal opportunity, transparency, monitoring, and
accountability.
9.
We demand that the prime minister should be a commoner to ease
accountability and to manifest the principle of circulations of
authority similar to what happened in King Saud’s reign and what
being practiced in some other constructional monarchies like UK,
Jordan and Morocco.
10.
Written constitutional laws must be promulgated to ensure and
protect basic human rights for an individual and groups;
especially political rights, rights to demonstrations and public
sit-ins to express their personal sentiments and to publically
protest injustice.
Fourth:
We ask his Majesty to grant necessary permissions to human-right
activists to see and monitor prisons, not to jail and torture
the ones who exposed such practices like exactly what had
happened to Professor Matrook Al-Faleh or others who tried to do
so. The establishment of an independent commission to open cases
of human-right abuses, defendants, and prisoners; the commission
can also investigate claims and allegations as indicated by
information and reports, the latest of which is a statement
issued by a protesting group of women in Qassim (a province
located 300 km north of Saudi capital, Riyadh) who demanded
restitutions for the victims and taking those alleged defendants
to courts of law in very transparent and public procedures.
Fifth:
We say to the judges you must respect the rule of law, and you
must reject secret tribunals because you precisely know what it
was built upon and where it will lead to? Couldn’t you stand up
against blatant violations of standards for just and fair
trials? Don’t you see what independent judges in France, former
Yugoslavia, and recently in Pakistan had done to contest
injustice? Why are you so afraid of publicity in your courts?
Didn’t you render unjust and tough punishments against peaceful
advocates of constitution and human rights? Then, why are you so
afraid of trying alleged terrorists in open courts?
Sixth:
We ask those who are concerned with political reform from every
background in our society, human-right advocates, and attorneys
to unit their efforts to defend human rights, the allegedly
accused, and prisoners regardless to their backgrounds. We
demand various government agencies to adhere to international
benchmarks of fair trails and imprisonments for any human being,
expose those responsible in abuses, and ensue publicity of court
hearings. This is the only savior that would ensure perseverance
of the society vis-à-vis violence and extremism and counter
(i.e., official) violence and extremism.
Seventh:
To the Custodian of the Two Holly Mosques:
Once more, to ensue against the Ministry of Interior attempts to
distort the image and character-assassinate advocates of
constitutional reforms and human rights by falsely accusing them
of justifying and inciting violence, we would like to emphasize
our adherence to peaceful means in our all discourse and deeds.
Certainly, we are not in any possible way justifying violence
when we pinpoint its causes. We argue here the solutions-in our
capacity as partners in this country-in order to present our
views in how to obliterate violence, and we can comfortably
declare: that no solution to violence and extremism and counter
(i.e., official) violence and extremism unless we, first and for
most, establish a new constitutional reign. Second, we must
allow, encourage, and follow dialogues in the society in order
to end political congestions.
Advocates of Constitutional Reforms, Civic Society and human
rights:
1.
Professor Abdulkareem Yousef Al-Khathar, Professor of Islamic
Jurisprudence in Qassim University and Human Right Activist.
2.
Dr. Abdulrahman Hamid Al-Hamid, Assistant professor of Islamic
Economics and a Human Right Activist.
3.
Professor Abdullah H. Al-Hamid, Former Professor of Comparative
Literature and Founding member in the Defunct and Banned
Committee of Defense of the Legitimate Rights (CDLR).
4.
Ayman Mohammed Al-Rashid, Human Right Activist.
5.
Abdalmohsen Ali Alayashe, Human Right Activist,
e-mail:abdalmohsen-0909@hotmail.com, Cel. +966553644636,
Fax:+96612041170.
6.
Fahad Abdulazia Ali AlOrani, Human Right Activist, E-Mail:
fahadalorani@gmail.com, Cel. +966502566678,
Fax:+96614272168.
7.
Fowzan Mohsan Alharbi, Human-Right Activist, E-mail:
fowzanm@gmail.com, Cel. +966501916774.
8.
Jaleelah Ahmed Alayashe, Human Right Activist.
9.
Hashim Abdullah Al-Refai, Human Right Activist.
10.
Maha Abdulraham Al-Qahtani, Human Right Activist.
11.
Mhana Mohammed Al-Faleh, Human Right Activist.
12.
Mohammad Hudijan Alharbi, Human Right Activist, E-mail:
mharbi100@gmail.com, Cel.+966507708320.
13.
Dr. Mohammad Fahad Al-Qahtani, Academic and Writer, E-Mail:
moh.alqahtani@gmail.com, Cel. +966555464345.
14.
Mohammed Mousa Al-Qarni, Human-Right Activist.
15.
Sad Abdulaziz Al-Mubark, Human Right Activist.
16.
Dr. Shaim Lafi Al-Hamazzani, Professor of Social Sciences,
Al-Imam University.
17.
Waleed Sami Abualkair, Writer and Legal Researcher, E-mail:
abualkair@gmail.com, Cel. +966567761788.
|
