Therefore, most of the penal legislation in various countries is explicitly stipulated and through the Criminal Procedure Law, and this is extracted and read from the legal texts.
With reference to the Saudi Anti-Terrorism Crime Law No. (M / 21/1439 AH), it was stated in the text of Article 5 (…… In all cases, the arrested person may not be kept in detention for more than (7 days), and this is a clear indication that the arrest is not originally. The exception to this is first.
Secondly: Article 10 of the Anti-Terrorism Law states (1 – The Head of State Security may prohibit a person suspected of committing any of the crimes stipulated in the system from traveling outside the Kingdom …).
This is clear evidence that there are alternatives to arrest, which is the travel ban, and the text is clear and unquestionable, as the suspect said (i.e., whoever suspects him of a crime and has not issued a final ruling against him by the court).
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has signed many international agreements, including the International Covenant on Political and Economic Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is a member of the Human Rights Council and is also a signatory to the Convention Against Torture of (1984)
Third: This text has been confirmed through Article (19) of the same regulation, paragraph (2) (The Public Prosecutor may prevent the accused in committing any of the crimes stipulated in the system from traveling).
This text came in clear wording that the suspect who was suspected by the Public Prosecution of having committed an offense is punished by preventing him from traveling, and the text did not reduce the arrest, which confirms that the arrest is an exception to the principle.
Because the human right to a free and dignified life is not achieved while he is arrested in prison, and a person cannot be compensated for his freedom in any other way.
Fourth: The purpose of modern penal legislation is to reform and rehabilitate persons suspected of committing acts contrary to the law, and that detention is a punishment in itself that conflicts with the purpose of legislation and legislative policy to reintegrate people into society, and in the event that they are punished by confining their freedom in places of detention.
Fifth: In affirmation of the desire of penal legislators and criminal law scholars not to resort to detention as a basic principle in the penal law, many alternatives to detention have been introduced, which the Public Prosecution uses to avoid using the power of arrest with what is known about alternative penalties. Among these methods are the provisions of the Saudi penal system (travel bans, electronic censorship, judicial bail). These alternatives must be used by the Public Prosecution Office, because their presence and inclusion in the legal texts is not to beautify the texts and to show them to international and human rights organizations, but rather to activate and act upon them instead of arresting and seizing the freedom of persons.
Sixth: It is evident and proven that the people who were arrested and arrested more than a year and a half ago, some of them close to two years ago, are not criminal precedents, but on the contrary, they are witnesses from far and wide of their good manners and that they were builders of Saudi society and their white hands were good and giving and they were not dangerous On the Saudi society that knows them, knows it, belongs to it, and provided their ages for its construction and development.
Seventh: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has signed many international conventions, including the International Covenant on Political and Economic Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a member of the Human Rights Council and is also a signatory to the Convention Against Torture of (1984), which considers illegal arrest and inhuman treatment of prisoners, including Medical negligence are torture crimes that require legal prosecution for the source of the arrest warrant, whether a judge or someone else, and it even entails financial compensation for the victim and is bound by the judge who issues the unlawful arrest warrant, as Article (14) stipulates the first paragraph of the said agreement:
1- Each state party shall guarantee to its legal system the fairness of the person subjected to an act of torture and his enjoyment of an enforceable right to a fair and adequate compensation, including the means to rehabilitate him as fully as possible, and in the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, the persons who depend on them shall have the right In compensation.
2- Also, orders issued by a higher-ranking official or from a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture.
It remains to be said that the agreement, after its ratification, will have power and rank higher than the law or the national system. It must be emphasized that the moral officer who controls the work of a judge, whether from the Public Prosecution or a court judge, is his conscience, and the arrest penalty is a sword that surrounds the detainee that may be misused by the Public Prosecution and the judiciary. It should not remain absolute without restriction, and the prosecution and the judiciary must He shall be fair in the litigation because it is not part of the litigation, and he must apply the law and the spirit of the law in a way that achieves the interests of the people and their freedoms first, and not to apply the law in a way that harms people and blocks their freedoms.
– The judge of the Specialized Criminal Court will face a real test in the coming days, when the case file begins for each person, either to prove that the judiciary is an authority biased towards truth and justice, and that is by releasing all detainees and declaring them innocent of the accusation against them, or for the judiciary to be a tool and a means in the hands of the political authority He messes with him as he wants and whenever he wants.
* Lawyer and criminal law specialist
All published articles express the opinion of their authors and do not necessarily express an opinion