Abu Dhabi: The Saudi Criminal Court in Riyadh on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Saudi woman Loujain Al Hathloul, detained in connection with a security-related case, in which she claimed sexual harassment and torture during her detention, local media reported.
The court said it issued a preliminary ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s case after she failed to provide evidence proving her claims of torture and harassment during her detention and was unable to specify the offenders.
The ruling was pronounced in the presence of the plaintiff and her family, as well as representatives of the Human Rights Commission and a number of media outlets, Riyadh newspaper reported.
The ruling may be appealed before the Court of Appeals.
The court said: “Whereas the Law of Criminal Procedure stipulates that it is forbidden to harm the arrested person physically or mentally, as well as forbidding him to be subjected to torture or degrading treatment, the Riyadh Criminal Court mandated the Public Prosecution, by virtue of the jurisdiction, to investigate the aforementioned case and inform it of what has been done.”
The court added the Public Prosecution submitted its reports to it, where it took a number of measures to verify the torture case, including taking the plaintiff’s statement, reviewing the evidence she had regarding her case, and reviewing all medical reports, made at her request since the date of her arrest.
The court said it also requested testimony of the Human Rights Commission regarding the torture case.
“The Human Rights Commission stated in its testimony that it visited the woman’s prison, met her after her father submitted a complaint that she was subjected to torture, and the medical reports were viewed, and it was not clear to the commission that she was tortured during her detention,” the court said.
According to the court, the Public Prosecution stated that the testimonies of a number of officials and specialists in the prison were taken, including those of the director of the prison, the prison supervisors, and a number of female prisoners detained along with the woman in the prison.
“The prosecution had access to the recording of surveillance cameras located inside the prison, and the General Administration of Criminal Evidence confirmed the integrity of these recordings from the criminal point of view.
“The Public Prosecution concluded in its report that the plaintiff’s allegations were submitted without any evidence, no charges were filed against specific persons and no descriptions were provided for their identification as the woman claimed she was blindfolded.
“The investigation department also did not prove what the plaintiff claimed to have been moved from Dhahban prison in the governorate of Jeddah to a secret location, and it was not proven that she was subjected to torture and harassment, after testimonies were taken of a number of officials and specialists in the prison, and a number of prisoners detained along with her in the prison during the period of her detention.
“The Public Prosecution confirmed that the usual weekly medical reports and medical reports that were made upon her request from the date of her arrest, confirmed that there was no evidence that her body was subjected to torture. Also the statement of the Human Rights Commission, the prison officials and female prisoners all confirmed that she was not subjected to torture during her detention.
“The prosecution’s investigations revealed that the recordings of surveillance cameras did not show that she was subjected to torture and deprived of sleep during the period of her hunger strike, contrary to her claims, and it was proven that the records were dealt with in accordance with approved protocols for the treatment of prisoners.
“Since the plaintiff did not sue a specific person and she had access to all these documents, the court allowed the plaintiff to present any evidence to prove her claims more than once, but she did not submit anything other than what was mentioned.
“After reviewing all of the above, the court issued its judgment that it had not proven that the plaintiff had been subjected to torture while she was held in prison,” the court concluded.
Article 154 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that trials are held publicly, but authorised courts exceptionally to hear cases, wholly or partially in secret sessions or prohibit certain groups from attending in the interest of security or the preservation of public morals, or when necessary to reveal the truth.
Article 181 states the same system provides that a judgment is announced in a public hearing, even if the case was looked into in secret hearings, with the presence of the case parties and all the judges who participated in the issuance of the judgment.
