The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the initial report of the United Arab Emirates, with Committee Experts praising the establishment of a national committee on human trafficking, and raising questions about the extradition or deportation of migrants and the arbitrary detention of persons charged under the State Security Apparatus.
Abderrazak Rouwane, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended the State’s establishment of a national committee on human trafficking. What was the scope of activities that this committee carried out, he asked?
Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked whether the Government had investigated cases of deported migrants being subjected to torture. Did migrants have access to legal aid both in law and in practice? Mr. Tuzmukhamedov welcomed that extradition was prohibited if persons were likely to be subjected to torture. Did the State seek agreements from destination States that extradited persons would not be subject to torture?
Another Committee Expert said that the Committee had received reports that suggested that protections for detainees against torture did not apply to the State Security Apparatus. Detainees could be held incommunicado for up to 180 days under this Apparatus. Did the State intend to modify the Apparatus to make it conform to the Convention?
On human trafficking, the delegation said that, in addition to the Committee established to coordinate efforts to fight trafficking, centres providing shelter and support for victims of trafficking had also been established. The State had collaborated with Interpol and 42 countries to identify international victims of trafficking, and this project had helped to rescue over 300 victims and break up trafficking cartels.
Introducing the report, Abdulrahman Murad Alblooshi, Director of the International Cooperation Department at the Ministry of Justice, and head of the delegation, said that the United Arab Emirates attracted millions of migrant workers, and had established several channels through which these workers could file complaints. No person was extradited unless there was an extradition agreement with the destination State. There were no cases in which a foreign national had been extradited. The delegation added that deportations only occurred when the worker posed a threat to the State. A commission had been established to review deportation orders.
The delegation said that all procedures taken under the National Security Apparatus were in line with national legislation and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused persons under this Apparatus were provided with guarantees of due process and access to a lawyer and medical assistance. The Apparatus aimed to prevent serious crimes and protect the rights of all persons living in the United Arab Emirates.
In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for its participation in the constructive dialogue. The issuing of an initial report was a departure point in the relationship with the Committee, Mr. Heller said. At the end of this session, the Committee would highlight three priority issues in its concluding observations that it expected the State party to address within one year.
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Alblooshi extended thanks to the Committee for considering the United Arab Emirates’ implementation of the provisions of the Convention. The United Arab Emirates was keen to promote respect for all human rights, he said. The State would consider the concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee, and would continue to support all initiatives and programmes of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The delegation of the United Arab Emirates consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation; Federal Authority for Identity and Citizenship; First Attorney General’s Office; Ministry of Health and Community Protection; Ministry of Interior Affairs; Federal Prosecution; Ras Al Khaimah Prosecution; Military Judgement; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; the Permanent Mission of United Arab Emirates to the United Kingdom and the Permanent Mission of United Arab Emirates to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue the concluding observations on the report of the United Arab Emirates at the end of its seventy-fourth session on 29 July. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 19 July at 10 a.m. to consider the initial report of the State of Palestine (CAT/C/PSE/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of the United Arab Emirates (CAT/C/ARE/1).
Presentation of Report
ABDULRAHMAN MURAD ALBLOOSHI, Director, International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Justice of the United Arab Emirates and head of the delegation, said that, since its inception in 1971, the United Arab Emirates had dedicated its efforts to strengthening its legislative and legal system to promote and protect human rights.
The Constitution of the United Arab Emirates established the protection of human rights and the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment. Federal Law 10 of 2019 on protection against domestic violence introduced protection orders that prevented aggressors from approaching victims. Federal Law 14 of 2020 established protection for witnesses.
The National Human Rights Commission was established under Federal Law 12 of 2021 as an independent institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. It conducted visits to places of detention, labour gatherings, and health and educational homes. It also received and investigated individual complaints and monitored human rights abuses and violations. Six specialised committees had also been formed to support the Commission, including the Civil and Political Rights Committee and the Complaints and Monitoring Committee. In December 2020, the National Human Rights Commission launched the first phase of the State’s national human rights plan.
The Constitution and the law of the United Arab Emirates guaranteed the right to litigate and the right to submit complaints against any individual in the State, protected complainants from physical and moral attacks, and introduced the right to appeal judicial decisions and the right to legal counsel. Complaints could be filed through the Attorney General’s website or smartphone applications. A unified call centre system to receive complaints and centres for victims of violence and human trafficking had been established.
The United Arab Emirates attracted millions of migrant workers, and had established several channels through which these workers could file complaints. The State guaranteed their right to leave work without any erosion of their rights.
Federal and local institutions and national human rights mechanisms had held training courses and workshops on domestic violence and human rights standards for 6,622 judicial officers, lawyers, government officials, and law enforcement officers in 2021. In May 2022, the Ministry of Justice organised a workshop on the development of strategies for implementing the Convention against Torture.
From 2020 to 2022, the State pardoned nearly 18,217 inmates. The State had also signed eight bilateral memorandums of understanding to prevent human trafficking. In 2020-2021, the Ministry of Interior organised training courses and lectures on human trafficking, which were attended by over 4,000 people.
In 2021, the Ministry of Justice developed a guide relating to international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and Federal Law 39 of 2006 on international judicial cooperation had also been introduced. The United Arab Emirates made annual contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
Over the next 50 years, the United Arab Emirates would work to preserve human rights and dignity, strengthen the justice system, and promote respect for all cultures and for national identity. The State would continue to support all global initiatives, commitments and organizations calling for peace, openness and cooperation.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKHTIYAR TUZMUKHAMEDOV, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the report of the United Arab Emirates asserted that the Convention had domestic law status. The report also said that the protection of the Convention was enshrined in the Constitution. Did the Convention take precedence when it contradicted a domestic law?
The United Arab Emirates was not a party to several international human rights treaties, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. What were the reasons for its non-participation?
The Government had stated that Islamic Sharia was a main component of the United Arab Emirates Constitution. How did the State find a balance between the Convention and the dictates of Islam? Did the Convention take precedence when it contradicted Sharia law?
Torture was permitted in periods of political instability and state of emergency. Were there plans to prohibit it in all circumstances? Did migrants, who made up over 80 per cent of the population, enjoy protection from torture?
What was the amount of the fine issued for committing a torture offence? Could the delegation provide examples of court cases where the Convention had been cited? What was the gender breakdown of the judiciary, and how were judges selected? There were reports of judges being subject to pressure, and of efforts to reduce the number of foreign judges in the United Arab Emirates. How did the delegation respond to these reports?
Were border officials and officials working in detention centres provided with training to reduce incidences of torture? What percentage of these officials were foreign nationals? What training was provided on the Istanbul Protocol? What was being done to make military personnel aware of the Convention? The United Arab Emirates reportedly relied on indigenous military forces and foreign fighters in overseas missions. What was being done to monitor these fighters and ensure that they respected the Convention?
Migrants, who made up over 90 per cent of the work force, did not have access to permanent residency. Had the Government investigated cases of deported persons being subjected to torture? Did migrants have access to legal aid both in law and in practice? Extradition was prohibited if persons were likely to be subjected to torture. Did the State seek agreements from destination States that extradited persons would not be subject to torture?
There was a diverse range of capital punishment sentences, but the punishment was reportedly rarely carried out. Had there been any death sentences carried out during the reporting period? Did the State prohibit the application of the death penalty on children?
ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended the United Arab Emirates for working with a range of Government bodies and civil society organizations in preparing the report. He called on the State to include the national human rights institution and non-governmental organizations in the preparation of future reports. Mr. Rouwane also called on the State party to define torture in line with article 1 of the Convention.
How many visits of detention centres had been carried out by the State? Had remedies for issues identified in those visits been introduced? How many complaints had been submitted to the Home Office regarding torture, and what actions had been taken in response to those complaints?
What programmes and strategies had been adopted to prevent the police force and military personnel from committing acts of torture? Marshall Law 11 allowed for detainees to file complaints related to improper detention and ill-treatment. How was this law implemented?
Did the United Arab Emirates intend to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention? The Department of Human Rights under the Foreign Affairs Ministry was one of the bodies responsible for protecting individuals from human rights abuses and investigating complaints. Did the Government intend to set up a coordination mechanism between the various bodies responsible for monitoring human rights? What guarantees had been provided to ensure the efficient review of complaints related to police forces?
How many centres supporting victims of domestic violence had been set up, and what services did these centres provide? The Expert commended the establishment of a national committee on human trafficking. What was the scope of activities that this committee carried out? What strategies and plans were in place to prevent torture and ill-treatment of workers?
What judicial assistance was provided to victims of torture? The Expert called for a definition of torture to be added to the National Code of Criminal Procedure. Was the burden of proof on the accused in cases of torture? In which cases could the Public Prosecutor restrict access of a detained person to a lawyer? Did accused persons have access to legal aid and health care? Was it correct that accused persons could be detained without trial for 60 days.
The Expert commended a law prohibiting the extradition of persons who would be subjected to torture in destination countries. How many extraditions had been halted under this law? What were the legal requirements regulating cases where foreigners were accused of acts of torture? Which crimes could lead to extradition? Was extradition enforced when there was no extradition agreement with the destination State? Could the State party provide examples of complaints submitted to the judiciary? What remedies were provided to victims of torture and ill-treatment?
Allegations of torture occurring against prisoners in solitary confinement in three prisons had been received by the Committee. How did the State party respond to allegations that safe water and hygiene facilities were not provided in these prisons?
Another Committee Expert said that the Committee had received reports that suggested that protections for detainees against torture did not apply to the State Security Apparatus. Detainees could be held incommunicado for up to 180 days under this Apparatus. Did the State intend to modify the Apparatus to make it conform to the Convention?
What steps had been taken to inform persons in detention about their right to complain? What was done to guard against prison officials retaliating against those who lodged complaints?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that domestic legislation banned torture and degrading treatment in line with the Convention. Article 28 of the Constitution guaranteed the presumption of innocence, and the right of all parties in legal proceedings to receive legal aid. Civil servants could be jailed for up to five years for inappropriately punishing a detainee; for up to five months for detaining a prisoner without the authority to do so; and for up to a year for subjecting a prisoner to inappropriate force or threats. If two individuals committed acts of torture or degrading treatment, or if the offence was committed against women and children, the punishment was increased. Any detainee could access information on their rights in Arabic, English and Urdu.
Article 125 of the Constitution set forth that all measures needed to be taken to implement international conventions to which the United Arab Emirates was a party. The United Arab Emirates did not have reservations to article 1 of the Convention. The State party would consider withdrawing its reservations to articles 20 and 30a. A team had been established to examine the withdrawal of these reservations. Punishments such as severing hands were no longer implemented in the United Arab Emirates. Although not yet a party to the Optional Protocol, the State worked in the spirit of this Protocol in establishing its national human rights institute.
The Ministry of Interior undertook investigations and implemented inditements regarding incidences of torture and degrading treatment. Confessions obtained by force or torture were not accepted. Interpreters were provided by the judiciary to aid defendants who did not speak Arabic, and rulings were not accepted unless an interpreter was present throughout the investigation.
Complaints could be lodged by any person through a dedicated smartphone app, and could be lodged both by affected individuals and legal counsel. If individuals alleged torture and ill-treatment, a comprehensive investigation was carried out. A doctor was used to assess whether torture had occurred. If evidence of torture was found, the perpetrator was prosecuted. The Ministry of Interior oversaw prisons and detention facilities, and conducted surprise visits to such facilities. If the Ministry received allegations of torture during these visits, it duly investigated them. Over 900 visits had been conducted over the past three years, while 81 allegations of torture had been received over the same period. The Prosecutor General’s office took great care to ensure that whistle-blowers were not subjected to further ill-treatment. Sufficient evidence of torture had been found in nine cases. In four of those cases, perpetrators were fined and imprisoned.
The Ministry of Interior had conducted training and workshops for 500 public servants on preventing torture and degrading treatment. Over 80 per cent of civil servants working in detention facilities had received this training. The United Arab Emirates was one of the first States in the region to adopt a law fighting trafficking in persons. Sentences for trafficking ranged from life imprisonment to a fine of 100,000 dirhams. A Government body had also been established to coordinate efforts to fight trafficking, as had centres providing shelter and support for victims of trafficking. An Interpol system monitoring trafficking was in place, and fingerprints were collected and documents checked for all persons entering the country. The State had collaborated with Interpol and 42 countries to identify international victims of trafficking, and this project had helped to rescue over 300 victims and break up trafficking cartels.
The United Arab Emirates was the sixth most popular location for migrants in the world. The United Arab Emirates had taken several measures to prevent trafficking of migrant workers. The State assured that all migrant workers undertook training on local laws and culture, and provided information on these workers’ rights. Employers were not allowed to charge fees related to recruitment and were legally required to provide orientation for new workers. The Abu Dhabi Dialogue considered strategies for protecting the rights of migrants in the region. Legal support was provided for all migrant workers.
The United Arab Emirates had implemented a framework of legislation to prevent violence against women and children. The Penal Code penalised physical violence and threats. Hotlines had been established for reporting violence against children and women, and there were also other electronic means for children to lodge complaints. A unit for children’s and women’s issues had been established within the Human Rights Department. A project had been implemented by this unit to crack down on online child pornography. Partnerships had been established with law enforcement agencies to fight sexual abuse of children. The State was also coordinating with civil society to identify evidence of child abuse online, and was investigating methods of using artificial intelligence to fight such child abuse.
Juvenile offenders were placed in rehabilitation centres, at which no adults were detained. The death sentence was not issued to children. Programmes were in place to support the rehabilitation of juveniles after their release from detention centres.
The State established the National Human Rights Committee in 2019. This Committee was responsible for establishing a national human rights strategy and cooperated with United Nations treaty bodies as well as the Universal Periodic Review. The Committee provided counselling and advice to Government officials regarding human rights issues.
Torture was prohibited in articles 288 to 296 of the Federal Penal Code. Punishments were varied based on the severity of the crime. “Provisional imprisonment” was imposed on civil servants who misused their power to punish another person. Such imprisonment ranged from three to 15 years.
Every person in the United Arab Emirates was protected against torture by the Constitution, not only nationals or citizens. There was no contradiction between the Islamic Sharia and the Convention. All harsh punishments listed in the Sharia had been prohibited.
In 2021, a guide on how to implement the Code of Criminal Procedures had been released. Under this guide, any person at risk of being subject to torture in a destination State must not be extradited. No person was extradited unless there was an extradition agreement with the destination State. United Arab Emirates’ laws allowed the State to punish foreigners for crimes committed outside of the State. There were no cases in which a foreign national had been extradited.
Judges were appointed based on competency tests given to university graduates. Judges were also subjected to continuous training. Foreign judges were still used in courts in the United Arab Emirates. Twenty per cent of judges were loaned from neighbouring Arab countries, and worked for a maximum of six years.
The National Security Apparatus respected the rights of all persons. All procedures taken by the National Security Apparatus were in line with national legislation and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused persons under this Apparatus were provided with guarantees of due process, access to a lawyer and medical assistance. Investigations were conducted under the supervision of the public prosecutor. Federal Act 2 of 2003, the basis of this Apparatus, was published in the official gazette of the State. The Apparatus aimed to prevent serious crimes and protect the rights of all persons living in the United Arab Emirates.
The death penalty was only implemented in response to premeditated homicide. Accused persons were protected throughout legal proceedings and were assigned lawyers. The sentence could only be handed down when the judges’ verdicts were unanimous. The accused could appeal a death penalty sentence in the cassation court. The family of homicide victims could also request death penalties to be reduced. The process of considering death penalty cases often took years, and families were sometimes convinced not to implement the death penalty during that time. Last year, six death penalties were issued, but none were carried out as families of victims had requested the sentence to be reduced.
The Security Council had supported the Gulf Initiative, and after withdrawing from Yemen, the United Arab Emirates had continued to support the United Nations’ efforts to end the conflict in Yemen peacefully. The United Arab Emirates also supported a peaceful solution to the conflict in Libya; it welcomed and was committed to implementing Security Council resolutions on Libya.
The United Arab Emirates provided physical and mental health care support to prisoners. It conducted periodic medical examinations of prisoners, and provided treatment for all diseases and illnesses. During the COVID-19 pandemic, prisoners were provided with treatment, voluntary vaccinations, and information on the pandemic. Special services were provided for pregnant prisoners and prisoners with disabilities. Health care professionals were provided with training regarding medical practices and responsibilities, and on supporting victims of torture and on the Istanbul Protocol. Procedures for providing medical care to persons who had allegedly been tortured had been established. Organ harvesting was prohibited, and an organ donor programme had been established to discourage organ harvesting.
Investigations of detention areas were conducted in line with human rights standards. Doctors had oversight over hygiene facilities and food provided in prisons. The State evaluated the competence and psychological and physical health of all people working in prisons and detention centres.
Units had been set up within the Ministry of Interior to receive complaints from prisoners. Complaint responses were subject to external oversight. Numerous measures had been adopted to ensure that force was only used by the police force in line with international standards. Civil servants were prohibited from abusing their power. Force should not be used as a sole solution, and only in cases of extreme danger. The minimum amount of force was required to be used to prevent danger to the public. The professional code of conduct governed the police’s use of force.
There were six centres across the State that assessed complaints of torture and ill treatment. These centres provided support to victims and reported complaints to the police force. There were special centres providing support to women and children who were victims of violence.
Migrant workers who ended their employment contracts were given another visa that gave them time to search for other work in the State. Deportations only occurred when the worker posed a threat to the State. A commission had been established to review deportation orders.
The State could not imprison a person without assessment for more than 48 hours. Within 48 hours, the public prosecutor assessed the person’s case, and freed the person if allegations against them were unfounded. If there was evidence that a crime had been committed, the person could be held for up to 30 days before trial. Defendants had the right to remain silent. If the individual did not have the means to hire legal representation, they would be appointed legal representation by the State. Shelters and legal advice were also provided to victims, and police transported victims to and from courts.
The army respected international human rights law, and had adopted rules that were in compliance with international standards. Martial law measures allowed the State to suspend ordinary legislative measures in case of threats to the State. Persons imprisoned under such laws had the right to all legal protections and due process. Complaints of abuse from such persons were required to be assessed within nine days.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKHTIYAR TUZMUKHAMEDOV, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that there was no comprehensive definition of torture in legislation, but the State’s plan to introduce this was a welcome development.
How did courts delineate contractions between Sharia law and legislation? There was a case where a Sharia court had ordered the severing of the hands of Muslim suspects. What was the number of foreign judges and indigenous judges in courts?
Legislation providing protection against family violence was also a welcome development. Were there plans to implement legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation?
How were United Arab Emirates’ military officials held accountable for violations of human rights law? Mr. Tuzmukhamedov requested a comment on allegations of abuse by United Arab Emirates’ military officials in Yemen.
ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked for information about rehabilitation centres for perpetrators of fundamentalist crimes.
He welcomed that a committee had been established for dealing with United Nations human rights bodies.
Did specialised forensic doctors examine claims of ill-treatment and torture? Were there awareness programmes in place specifically related to preventing torture? How many complaints had the State received specifically regarding torture and ill-treatment?
Was a lawyer provided from the first stage of an arrest? Was there a central registry that recorded all cases of arrests? Such information would help to prevent torture. The period that a person could be detained without trial was rather long. Were there plans to decrease this?
Another Committee Expert asked why the 2003 law establishing the State Security Apparatus was not published on the Internet.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that all legislation had been updated so that no text from Islamic Sharia law was included in criminal legislation. Judges could consider whether or not to implement the death penalty when it was called for under Sharia law. An amendment had been made to criminal law legislation in 2021 to eliminate whipping and other punishments. It was compulsory that a lawyer be present if accused individuals requested legal counsel.
The percentage of foreign judges could reach as high as 25 per cent. The State had made significant progress regarding equality of men and women in the judiciary. The number of judges and legal counsellors who were women was increasing.
National centres for rehabilitation were created in 2019. The goal of these centres was to rehabilitate persons with ties to terrorism and extremism. Individuals spent 15 days in these centres. People could volunteer to attend these centres, and others could request that individuals were placed in these centres.
Federal law 35 of the Criminal Code established statutes of limitations. For misdemeanours, the statute of limitations was five years. For serious crimes, after 15 years, an additional statute of limitations could be applied for an additional 20 years.
If a lawyer was not present at the beginning of court proceedings, the court would appoint an attorney. Court rulings were not accepted unless a defence attorney was present throughout proceedings. Pro-bono lawyers provided support both to the accused and victims. Police had been trained to inform detainees of their rights.
At 21 days of detention, a judge would decide to either release an individual or extend the period of detention, however, this period could not be extended beyond 30 days.
The national human rights institute was tasked with submitting reports to United Nations human rights bodies, and putting in place programmes on human rights.
Forensic doctors were employed to investigate acts of torture. There was no law suggesting that persons working in the medical sphere were allowed to conduct female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation was not carried out by doctors in the State, and national legislation criminalised the practice.
A database had been established that collated all data on criminal cases and detainees. The public prosecutor used this database to monitor detainees and determine release dates. Foreign persons were employed in detention centres, but the Ministry of Interior was trying to reduce its reliance on foreign workers in these centres.
Concluding Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for its participation in the constructive dialogue. The issuing of an initial report was a departure point in the relationship with the Committee. At the end of this session, the Committee would highlight three priority issues in its concluding observations that it expected the State party to address within one year.
ABDULRAHMAN MURAD ALBLOOSHI, Director, International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Justice of the United Arab Emirates and head of the delegation, extended thanks to the Committee for considering the United Arab Emirates’ implementation of the provisions of the Convention. The discussions had allowed the State party to review the United Arab Emirates’ efforts in prohibiting torture and ill treatment. The United Arab Emirates was keen to promote respect for all human rights, and looked forward to receiving feedback and recommendations from the Committee. The United Arab Emirates would consider the concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee, and would continue to support all Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ initiatives and programmes.