His Royal Highness Prince Naif Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud
Ministry of the Interior
PO Box 2933 Airport Road
Riyadh 11134
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

20 December 2007

Your Excellency,

We are writing on behalf of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) in connection with information we have received suggesting that lawyer Abdul Rahman Al-Lahim may be disbarred. Following a recent decision of the Qatif court in Saudi Arabia, we understand that Mr Al-Lahim may have been banned from the courtroom and from any future representation of one of his clients.

In its role as a dual membership organisation, comprising 30,000 individual lawyers and over 195 Bar Associations and Law Societies, the IBA influences the development of international law reform and shapes the future of the legal profession. Its member organisations cover all continents. The IBA’s Human Rights Institute works across the association, helping to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.

We understand that Mr Al-Lahim, a prominent Saudi Arabian lawyer, was representing a 19 year old girl who was reportedly raped and sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail on appeal in November 2007. The victim of the rape had reportedly been charged with the crime of being in the car of a man who was neither her husband nor a relative. Her sentence has recently been pardoned by the King; however, we understand that Mr Al-Lahim has had his lawyer’s identification card confiscated and faces a disciplinary hearing before the Ministry of Justice allegedly for criticising the court’s treatment of his client. We have learnt that Mr Al-Lahim objected to the Court order that the rape victim attend the delivery of the verdict in person, despite the presence of her seven attackers. Mr Al-Lahim has been charged with insulting the Supreme Judicial Council and disobeying the rules and regulations of the judiciary, specifically ‘misrepresenting legal subjects through the media to confuse the judicial establishment’s image and thus harming the country’. The hearing, which is currently adjourned until an unspecified date, allegedly entails the possibility of a three year suspension and disbarment.

If the reports received are correct, we are concerned that the decision to take disciplinary action against Mr Al-Lahim could constitute a violation of his client’s right to defence. Furthermore, it is possible that such measures could interfere with the ability of Mr Al-Lahim and other members of the legal profession to perform their professional duties without interference.

We are aware that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia protects human rights in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah under Article 26 of its Constitution. The right to defence is also upheld in Saudi Arabia’s domestic legislation; the Saudi Protection of Human Rights in Criminal Procedure and in the Organization of the Judicial System (2000) refers to the availability of domestic provisions of legal representation under Saudi Arabian domestic law. The Regulatory Schedule Appended to the Statutes of the Public Investigation and Prosecution Department provides ‘(ii) the examiner does not have the right to separate the suspect from his lawyer or legal representative during the examination’.  Article 59 of the Administrative Rules of Judicial Procedure further provides that ‘every person has an unrestricted right to appoint a legal counsel’.

The IBAHRI would also like to respectfully highlight that the principles of customary international law recognise both the right to a fair trial, including the right to a defence, as well as the need for lawyers to be able to freely discharge their professional duties.  The right to a fair trial is upheld in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in all regional human rights instruments, and in the constitution of nearly every state. Furthermore, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers recognises the importance of legal representation for defendants in criminal trials. Article 1 upholds that everyone is entitled to ‘call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings’. Article 16 provides that lawyers are ‘able to perform all their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference’ and shall not ‘suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards and ethics’. If reports received are correct then we are concerned that the actions of the Qatif court and the Ministry of Justice might be in contravention of the above principles.

Saudi Arabia is both a state party to the Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR) and a signatory to the OIC Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), both of which recognise that the right to defence is necessary for a fair trial. The ACHR provides that ‘the accused shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty at a lawful trial in which he has enjoyed the guarantees necessary for his defence’. This principle is also upheld in Article 19 (e) of the CDHRI. The alleged actions of the Qatif court and the Ministry of Justice suggest that they have failed to pay due regard to these obligations.

We understand that in Saudi domestic law, judgments conferring a sentence of 40 or more lashes, or 10 days imprisonment are automatically referred to the Court of Cassation for review.  The Directives Concerning Review of Legal Judgments require that the person against whom a judgment is made be informed ‘of the procedure and deadline for the lodging of an objection and [be] given a copy of the judgement’. This right to appeal is rendered illusory if individuals are prevented from exercising it through fear of the possibility of receiving a harsher sentence. Mr Al-Lahim is quoted to say ‘basic Islamic law states that an appeal shall not harm the person appealing… Once this rule is ignored, then people who appeal verdicts are only left terrorised. From now on people will be apprehensive to appeal’.

Reports indicate that Mr Al-Lahim may be being punished for no more than the legitimate discharge of his professional duties. The IBAHRI considers that, if these reports are correct, it is possible that the Court and the Ministry of Justice could have acted in contravention of international standards and Saudi domestic law. We would be most grateful to receive further information on the above allegations and the precise nature of the disciplinary action taken against Mr Al-Lahim. We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Ambassador Emilio Càrdenas                         
Justice Richard Goldstone
Human Rights Institute Council Co-Chairs