موقع إخباري يهتم بفضائح و انتهاكات دولة الامارات

Investigation: This is how the UAE still detains activists despite the end of their sentence

105

The UAE authorities continue to detain at least 13 prisoners of conscience illegally. They continue to be detained despite the end of their sentence, including those who have exceeded three years in arbitrary detention.

The authorities have not responded to demands for their release, although there is no clear legal basis for extending their detention.

The International Center for Justice and Human Rights affirmed that the UAE authorities must release the outgoing prisoners of conscience.

The Center stressed that it is not permissible for them to continue their detention without a clear legal basis. Their arrest was from the beginning for practising freedom of expression and defending human rights.

The MENA Human Rights organization had submitted a complaint to the United Nations about the UAE’s arbitrary detention of prisoners of conscience whose sentences had expired.

The organization said it had filed the complaint with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

It explained that it had raised the issue of five prisoners of conscience in UAE prisons who are being held indefinitely under the counselling system under the pretext of “providing advice.”

The organization highlighted that they were arrested based on opinion and expression and the demand for reform and the release of public freedoms.

The counselling centres used by the ruling regime in the Emirates to keep prisoners of conscience illegally arrested constitute an arbitrary measure of a coercive nature and a gross violation of human rights.

The Emirati regime is holding at least 11 prisoners of conscience in counselling centres, who have recently been joined by prisoners of conscience, Amina al-Abdouli and Maryam al-Balushi, whose sentences expired the 19 of this month.

The United Nations experts attacked the terrorism law in the UAE and considered that it violates rights and freedoms and constitutes a threat to human rights principles and legal certainty. This condemnation comes within the framework of their review of the legislation of Law No. 7 of 2014 regarding combating terrorism crimes.

Experts are particularly disturbed by Article 40 of Law 7, which states that “if a person appears to pose a terrorist threat, he is sent to counselling centres, by way of a ruling issued by a state security court.

Article 1 of Law 7 defines Munasaha centres as “administrative units aimed at enlightening and reforming persons who are considered threatening terrorists or convicted of terrorist crimes”.

According to the report, a “terrorist threat” is defined in Article 40 of Law 7, which states that “a person is considered a terrorist threat if it is said that the person adopts an extremist or terrorist ideology to the extent that it appears that he is likely to do so by committing a terrorist crime”.

However, the law appears to remain silent regarding the extent to which a person is deemed “probable” to commit terrorism as a crime, and it is also not clear how to assess the “likelihood” of a breach.