The UAE Detainees Advocacy Center refuted the “incoherent arguments” presented by the UAE authorities in their response to the United Nations’ communication regarding the unjust trial of opinion activists and political opponents in the country.

The center said in a statement seen by Emirates Leaks that during the past years, the UAE authorities have relied on a policy of ignoring reports and messages sent by United Nations experts about human rights violations in the country.

Since 2010, experts have sent 73 communications to the UAE, and it has responded to 34 of them, while it has ignored 39, meaning it has not responded to more than half of the UN letters and inquiries.

Hence, it seemed unsurprising that the authorities wouldn’t reply to the United Nations communication sent in January 2024 concerning the “UAE 84” trial violations, particularly given that they only responded to one out of seven communications submitted in 2023.

However, Abu Dhabi requested the United Nations to prolong the response timeframe by an extra month, advocating for a 90-day extension instead of the initial 60. This suggests that the UAE not only plans to respond but is actively preparing a reply to the UN communication, encompassing 23 pages and over 12 inquiries.

After 90 days, the UAE responded, but the surprise was that the response was only 4 pages, and it could be shortened to a maximum of two pages if we delete the introduction and the repeated thanks to the UN experts for their efforts and their role in protecting human rights.

However, the most peculiar aspect lies not just in the extensive nature of the response, but in its substance. The UAE largely declined to furnish any details regarding the progression of the “UAE 84” trial, citing that commenting on the trial would amount to executive interference with judicial independence and a breach of the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The first question that arises upon reviewing this reply is: Why did the UAE request a 90-day extension to provide their response? Subsequently, what correlation exists between the inquiries posed by United Nations experts concerning trial violations like torture, solitary confinement, and other matters, and the independence of the judiciary?

The United Nations experts didn’t demand the UAE replace the role of the judicial authorities in judging the accused. Instead, they simply requested information about the legal grounds of the case. In essence, why are the accused being prosecuted? What charges are being brought against them? Does addressing these queries amount to a breach of judicial independence?

The most ironic aspect is that the Emirati authorities condensed the United Nations inquiry, which detailed procedural violations like failure to inform the accused of charges and extracting confessions under torture, into one paragraph, stating that addressing allegations at this stage is not feasible. This underscores the procedural injustice within the proceedings under scrutiny.

It pointed out that making assumptions about the anticipated overall fairness of the proceedings without examining them comprehensively would be improper and fruitless.

This means that the Emirati response does not deny the existence of these serious violations that undermine the fairness of the trial in the first place, but it argues that scrutiny of these allegations cannot occur during the trial, but rather occurs after its completion when the procedures can be considered completely.

This part is the most dangerous part of the entire response because it means that the Emirati authorities are asking the United Nations: What is the problem if there are procedural violations such as secret detention and preventing the accused from defending themselves? Who told you that these violations affect the outcome? The trial and adherence to it are important.

What confirms this is that the authorities said in the following paragraph, “It is also too early to make any comment, because the outcome of the procedures is not yet known.”

The center remarked, “It’s uncertain whether the authorities understand that consequences aren’t required for violating these procedures, and their failure to adhere to these procedures may not necessarily impact the trial’s outcome. These procedures are legally regarded as part of public order, and merely disregarding them is enough to abolish the entire trial.”

Additionally, it stated, “However, the contradictions in the UAE response don’t stop there. Following its refusal to address any inquiries regarding the trial and its minimization of the significance of procedural violations, it proceeded to examine the constitutional and legal assurances that the Emirates’ legal system offers for a fair trial.”

It also added “Abu Dhabi expressed pride in the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines the accused’s right to legal counsel and timely notification of charges, typically within 24 hours of arrest, along with other legal safeguards enshrined by the law. The UAE indicated its inability to presently confirm their implementation and pledged to assess them post-trial, as outlined in the report.”

The Center affirmed that while it may initially appear unusual for a country like the UAE to issue such a legal response, given its substantial investments to attract judges and legal experts from across the Arab world, it’s not surprising. Particularly considering it’s the same country that has detained numerous lawyers, judges, and academics like Muhammad Al-Mansouri, Hadef Al-Owais, and Muhammad Al-Roken.