Consequently, this report is the product of information gathered through extensive legal and academic research and through approximately 85 interviews with Saudi nationals, American and Arab scholars, and foreigners who have lived and worked in Saudi Arabia. To conduct these interviews, the Committee sent researchers to Cairo, Geneva, London, the Philippines, and Vienna. Other interviews took place in cities across the United States and Canada. With rare exceptions, all the interviewees are cited anonymously, when cited at all, for their personal protection. Interview locations periodically are cited only as "United States" to maintain anonymity.The Committee also received information from the Saudi Arabian embassy in the United States, and a draft of this report was sent to the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States for comment. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee recieved no response from the Ambassador.The Minnesota Lawyers Committee gratefully acknowledges the receipt of a grant from the J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation which significantly facilitated this project. (Several non governmental human rights groups recently have published relevant critiques of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. The most salient include: ARTICLE 19, SILENT KINGDOM: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN SAUDI ARABIA (1991); and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, SAUDI ARABIA: DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF SUSPECTED POLITICAL OPPONENTS (1990). These reports independently corroborate findings also contained in the present report).

REPORT SUMMARY

Despite considerable economic development during the past 30 years, Saudi Arabia maintains a deplorable human rights situation for its citizens and foreign residents. Saudi Arabia today remains an absolute monarchy with no penal code, no political parties, no freedom of religion, no trade unions, and no free press. Political and cultural dissent is harshly repressed. Even the thousands of refugees who fled from neighboring Iraq during the gulf crisis continue to be detained in desert camps surrounded by barbedwire. Saudi Arabia has failed to adopt nearly all of the important human rights treaties and conventions in the world. Through membership in the United Nations, however, Saudi Arabia is bound by the obligations of the United Nations Charter, including a commitment to uphold human rights, which are authoritatively defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even though Saudi Arabia has set itself apart from the majority of nations by its failure to join in the adoption of important human rights instruments, and by its disregard of the rights and guarantees those instruments provide, it has attempted to present itself in many international fora as a promoter and defender of human rights. Its voting record in the General Assembly of the United Nations, its participation in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, its support of various Islamic declarations on human rights, and its frequent criticism of the human rights record of other nations belie its own reprehensible conduct at home - conduct which runs afoul not only of international standards, but also of Islamic law and its own domestic law.

This report documents many of the failures of Saudi Arabia's human rights record, especially regarding the criminal justice system, and the treatment of foreign workers, women, and the Shi'a minority.

Abusive Criminal Justice and a Judiciary Subservient to the King

Saudi Arabia maintains security forces which exercise virtually unchecked discretion to arrest and detain Saudi citizens and foreigners. Arbitrary arrest is common and those most affected are foreign workers from developing countries and suspected Shi'a political dissidents. Once arrested, the detainees regularly will be held incommunicado. Beatings and physical and psychological torture are common and widespread. Police and prosecutors routinely use such techniques to coerce confessions of suspected criminals or political dissidents. Though Saudi law requires that trials be public, they seldom are; even defense attorneys are not allowed in the courtrooms. Judges are appointed by the King and likewise may be removed by the King. They are reported to act in accord with the will of the royal family and, in practice, none acts contrary to the will of the King.

Slave-like Treatment of Foreign Workers

Despite the need for an estimated 4 to 5 million foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, their Saudi employers and the government itself routinely subject these workers to serious ill-treatment. Workers from developing nations in Africa and Asia suffer the worst treatment. After arriving in Saudi Arabia, these workers frequently must accept substitute contracts for lower wages and more work, and must relinquish their passports to their employers. The employers also hold the workers' residency permits, and decide if and when a worker will obtain a visa to leave the country. Many foreign workers also must suffer offensive living conditions and excessively-long working hours, and are afforded little, if any, redress for their grievances by the Saudi Government. If workers are not Muslims they are forbidden to practice their own religion. Female domestic servants from developing countries often are obliged to endure truly slave-like
conditions. Their employers often do not permit them to leave the house. Many are malnourished, forced to work up to 18 hours per day - everyday and subject to physical and sexual abuse. Domestic servants who escape from abusive employers are detained by the government and may be held in jail for up to several months before being deported. Some are obliged to return to the abusive employers.

Institutionalized Discrimination against Women

Women in Saudi Arabia are treated as second-class subjects with different legal rights from men. Women have only severely restricted freedom of movement. No woman may travel far in Saudi Arabia or leave the country without permission from the senior male member of her family. When in public, a woman generally must be accompanied by a man or a boy of her household and must abide by strictly-enforced codes of dress. Women are prohibited from driving automobiles. Segregation of the sexes - fundamental to Saudi society has unequal and adverse consequences for women. Women do not enjoy equal educational opportunities or resources and may ultimately work only in those limited vocations permitted by the government. Most women do not have the choice of working outside the home and are denied the opportunity to participate fully in Saudi life.

Religious Intolerance and Discrimination

The Saudi Government strictly prohibits the public practice of any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia. Anyone practicing another religion or found with non-Islamic religious artifacts is subject to arrest and, if a foreigner, deportation. Even Muslims who do not profess faith in the official Sunni Islam must endure serious discrimination. The Shi'a Muslim religious minority in Saudi Arabia is the target of a government campaign of intimidation, economic and cultural repression, and terror. The ill-treatment of the Shi'a minority ranges from employment discrimination, restrictions on travel, and harassment of students returning from study abroad, to massive arbitrary arrests and detention and the destruction of Shi'a religious buildings.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on its investigation, the Minnesota Lawyers Committee recommends that the Government of Saudi Arabia:

1. INTRODUCTION

Saudi Arabia is a relatively large and sparsely populated country that extends over most of the Arabian peninsula. The region has a long history of divided nomadic tribes and an isolated culture. Although Muslims from other countries have for centuries interacted with the region's inhabitants during their religious pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina' the experience has not produced a cosmopolitan nation. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia today continues to be an insular, closed society which views external cultural and political influences with apprehension. Likewise, the historical, political, and social circumstances of Saudi Arabia have not encouraged respect for internationally recognized human rights. Saudi Arabia's substantial economic advances during the past thirty years could have facilitated significant progress in strengthening the promotion and protection of the human rights of its citizens and foreign residents. Rather than expanding the scope of rights and freedom for its people, however, the Saudi Government has tightened its controls on society, and harshly suppressed political and cultural dissent. Saudi Arabia remains an absolute monarchy with no penal code, no political parties, no trade unions, and no free press. Saudi Arabia also has no political constitution, although a series of royal decrees announced on March 1, 1992, may provide elements of a constitution.

A. Population and Geography of Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia's population is estimated to be roughly 14 million, somewhat fewer than half of whom are foreign residents.' Accurate data on population is, however, difficult to obtain because of the apparent desire of the Saudi Government to maintain the appearance of a large population - not surprising in a country with vast natural resources, few people, and covetous neighbors. The first official census was conducted in 1962-63, but the results were repudiated by the government. In 1976 the Saudi Government issued a statement on a 1974 census, claiming a population of 7 million, though the World Bank estimated it to be closer to 5 million (of whom a significant number were foreigners). Officially, the Saudi Government claimed a population of 12 million in 1989,' but as indicated above, the indigenous population was probably closer to 7 million at that time. The current birth rate in Saudi Arabia is approximately 42 per thousand and the death rate is approximately 8 per thousand yielding a crude growth rate of 3.4% per annum.' The fertility rate is also high: reportedly 7.1 %.7 Infant mortality is approximately 70 per thousand.' The literacy rate in Saudi Arabia is roughly 50%.' These statistics are similar to those applicable to Egypt, a much less wealthy country. Approximately 85% of the Saudi population is Sunni Muslim. The remaining indigenous population is largely Shi'a Muslim and is concentrated in the Eastern Province of the country. The public practice of religions other than Islam is not permitted.

Saudi Arabia covers a geographic area of approximately 830,000 square miles - about one-third the size of the continental United States. Much of the territory is arid, and it is sparsely populated except for a few cities.

B. History and Economics

Saudi Arabia's history begins with King Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman al-Saud, who created the country in 1932 after a 30-yearstruggle to unify the region. Important and timely support was provided to Abdul Aziz by the Ikhwan (brethren) movement strict followers of Wahhabism, a purist strain of Sunni Islam. The al-Saud family and the Wahhabis have ties that run to the mid-18th century. Abdul Aziz had 43 sons, 13 four of whom followed him successively as the monarch of Saudi Arabia, including the current King, Fahd ibn Abdul Aziz. No less than six of the King's brothers are in high positions in the Saudi Government, including Crown Prince Abdullah (Deputy Prime Minister and Commander of the National Guard), Prince Sultan (Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense and Aviation), Prince Muteb (Minister of Public Works and Housing), Prince Naif (Minister of the Interior), Prince Abdul Rahman (Deputy Minister of Defense and Aviation), and Prince Ahmad (Deputy Minister of the Interior).

Other brothers are governors of the principal emirates (Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, and others). Sons of King Fahd and certain of his nephews also hold important positions, including Minister of Foreign Affairs. The royal family is large (estimates range from 4,000 - 6,000 princes and princesses) and dominant in Saudi affairs. The region now occupied by Saudi Arabia was for centuries poor, and its economy limited to animal herding, date production, modest merchant commerce, and the income from pilgrimages to the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Oil was not discovered in commercial quantities until 1938. Since that time economic development in Saudi Arabia has grown extensively. Current estimates suggest Saudi Arabia possesses one quarter of the world's oil reserves and substantial reserves of natural gas. Saudi Arabia's exploitation of this natural resource has generated enormous wealth. This wealth
led first to luxury for the royal family and those tribes of particular political importance to the King. During the reign of King Saud (1953-64) there was limited economic development in Saudi Arabia as a whole. In fact, the growing economic gap between the royal family and the rest of Saudi society caused significant social tensions and ultimately led to the removal of Saud and his replacement by King Faisal, his brother. King Faisal (1964-75) was a religious man who strove to combine development with religious conservatism, consistent with the traditional view of protecting the lands under Islam's rule and promoting the well-being of Muslims. Even before his reign, he and his wife promoted the expansion of women's education in the late 1950's and he directed the de jure abolition of slavery in Saudi Arabia in 1962. Economic development accelerated under the guidance of King Faisal. Education, health, and public works all expanded greatly, and Saudi Arabia began to show some of the physical characteristics of a modern state. Rural to urban migration also became significant during this period. Economic development has continued during the reigns of King Khalid (1975-82) and King Fahd (1982-present). King Fahd, like his predecessors, rules as an absolute monarch.

C. Current Political Concerns

Traditional democratic institutions do not exist in Saudi Arabia. The principal mechanism for airing grievances or requesting favors is the majlis, a regular audience held by political leaders. On March 1, 1992, King Fahd finally issued decrees establishing a ficonsultative council" - a governmental body viewed by some as a first step toward a parliament. This potentially significant development - discussed below in section D - nonetheless appears to fall short of real democratic reform and keeps control of power in the hands of the royal family. This monopoly on power includes considerable censorship of the press and other mass media in Saudi Arabia. Some sources report the Saudi Government even exerts control over the media in other Arab countries by paying them to refrain from disseminating negative information about Saudi Arabia. Where such efforts are unsuccessful, friendly Arab governments are
encouraged to restrict the transmission of such information. Among the reasons for the royal family's reluctance to embrace democratic customs is a great concern with state security, which the Saudis believe to be threatened by their neighbors and by internal unrest, especially from militant Muslim religious groups and the Shi'a minority. "Modernization" is at the heart of the internal problem and has created significant tension between the traditional Saudi religious community and the government. There have been many incidents over the years in which supporters of traditional Wahhabi interpretations of Islam have clashed with the government and well-educated technocrats intent on modernization. Even the introduction of radio and television in Saudi Arabia produced serious controversy. More recent disputes included the 1979 seizure of the Grand Mosque at Mecca by at least 500 conservative Sunni dissidents led by the grandson of a prominent Ikhwan critic of Abdul Aziz. Militant Muslim groups lately have demonstrated renewed assertiveness in their criticism of the government through speeches outside mosques and the clandestine distribution of political audio tapes. Their activity has prompted stern public warnings to desist from Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi Chief of Intelligence, and Sheikh Abdelaziz ibn Baz, Saudi Arabia's senior religious leader.

D. The Decrees of 1 March 1992

Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Saudi Government has taken an increasingly cautious approach to political and cultural issues, aiming for compatibility with traditional Wahhabism, but avoiding extreme militant Muslim positions." Indeed, the Iranian revolution is now central to the view of the Saudi Arabia." Another decree provides for the creation within six months of a 60-member Consultative Council (Majlis Al Shoura) which is to have authority to consult with the King and the power to review laws and government policies." A third decree provides that within one year a provincial government system be formalized for the 14 provinces." Article I of the first decree provides: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Arab and Islamic sovereign state, its religion is Islam, and its constitution the holy Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah. Its language is Arabic and capital Riyadh." The statement of King Fahd at the announcement of the decrees also emphasized that Islam and the Shari'a are the foundation for the Saudi Arabian "system." The decree, however, appears to change little of current law or practice. Among other things, the decree specifies the position of the Crown Prince; emphasizes the importance of Islam; describes certain economic principles; describes the state's role in providing services such as education, public health, and defense; and describes the three branches of government, namely the judicial, executive, and organizational authorities. Several articles of the first decree are of particular relevance to this report. Regarding personal freedom, for example, it provides: the state ensures the security of all citizens and residents and nobody has the right to harass, arrest, or imprison anyone except under the rules of the system. As this report describes, however, the rules of the current system appear to disregard such basic rights. The decree also provides for an independent judiciary, already nominally guaranteed by existing law - but does not change the current policy which undermines that independence:
"Judges will be appointed and relieved of their duties by a Royal decree according to a proposal by the Supreme Judicial Council and according to the system's regulations. The second decree is potentially significant in its creation of a formal "Consultative Council" with explicit powers. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee notes with concern, however, that the first decree gives the King the power to dissolve the Council and restructure it." In principle, the 60-member Council would: submit resolutions to the Prime Minister for consideration by the Council of Ministers, and review regulations, conventions international agreements." In effect, the Council would have the apparent authority to question the government, and if it did not approve a governmental action, such matter would have to be decided by the King. The Consultative Council may constitute an initial step toward democracy in Saudi Arabia, and is a welcome
development. It remains to be seen whether it is a harbinger of real reform or mere ornamentation. As its members are appointed by the King, not elected, it seems unlikely the Council will provide a truly separate branch of government that directly reflects the will of the people. Moreover, as the first decree makes clear, the rule of Saudi Arabia "will be confined to the sons of the Kingdom's founder . . . and grandsons. This reiteration of rule by absolute monarchy bodes ill for those who desire true democratic reform. The third decree formalizes a system for provincial government, to take effect within a year, which includes the creation of Provincial Councils parallel to the national Consultative Council. Overall, the decrees are modest in scope and do not address the bulk of the abuses identified in this' report. A document that purports to establish the basic structure of government should fully enumerate the fundamental rights enjoyed by the people. The decrees fail to provide such an enumeration and specifically are silent on all persons' rights to life, equality, freedom of movement, and dignity. The fundamental right to freedom of expression is explicitly denied," and no provision is made for preventing discrimination against religious minorities and women. Other guarantees, such as the provision that the state protects the rights of the people in line with the Islamic Shari'a"" are merely repetitive of existing law which is not respected. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee expresses only guarded optimism regarding the recent decrees and awaits truly democratic reforms in the future.

E. The Saudi Legal System

In theory, the Saudi legal system provides an adequate foundation for the protection of many basic rights such as due process, impartial courts of law, and freedom from torture. In practice, however, as much of this report describes, the Saudi legal system fails to protect those rights. The result is a deplorable situation for human rights in Saudi Arabia. This section is meant to provide background for those readers unfamiliar with basic Islamic law and the Saudi judicial system. It is not intended to be an authoritative analysis of Islamic law.

I . The Shari'a

There has been no political constitution in Saudi Arabia. Rather, the fundamental law of the land is the Shari'a (Islamic Law) as interpreted by the Hanbali school of thought. There are four sources of the Shari'a. The first is the Quran, the revealed word of God. The Quran is the ultimate authority on any legal issue and applies to everyone without exception. No royal decree, religious ruling (fatwa), or any other law or regulation may contradict the Quran. The second source of the Shari'a is the Sunna, the deeds and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The third is Ijma, the Consensus of Muslim scholars on an issue not addressed in the Quran or in the Sunna. The fourth source of the Shari'a is Qiyas, or rules derived by juridical analogy. In addition to the Shari'a, there is a growing body of positive law which must follow the dictates of the Shari'a while providing for the condition of modem society. The sources of this law are royal decrees, legislation promulgated by the Council of Ministers, and other rules and regulations issued by individual ministries and administrative agencies.

2. The Judicial System

In 1927, before the formal establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, King Abdul Aziz issued regulations organizing the composition and jurisdiction of the various courts in the unified lands then under his rule.' Those regulations established the foundation of the Saudi judicial system, which endured until the reorganization by King Khalid's royal decree in 1975. Although the new judiciary retained some of the features of the 1927 judicial regulations, the 1975 reform was a significant revision, responding to rapid modernization in Saudi Arabia. Three noteworthy features of the 1975 Judicial Law are the nominal independence of the judiciary, an established hierarchy of courts, and public trials. The 1975 Judicial Law declares at the outset judges are independent and not subject to any authority in the exercise of their adjudicative functions except to the Shari'a and the law, and no person may interfere with the judiciary. Indeed, under Saudi law, it is a crime for the Minister of Justice or other ministers to interfere in the function of the judiciary." To insure its independence, the Judicial Law provides additional procedural safeguards such as reserving the removal, transfer, or discipline of judges to a Supreme Judicial Council (the highest organ of the judicial power). The Judicial Law specifies four levels of Shari'a courts: Limited Courts, General Courts, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Judicial Council. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is the highest judicial body in Saudi Arabia. In addition to its appellate jurisdiction in certain cases, it has administrative and supervisory jurisdiction over the Shari'a courts. It is specifically authorized to review all sentences of beheading, amputations, and stoning. The SJC reportedly also has the authority to investigate and remove corrupt judges." In addition, the SJC can issue advisory opinions if requested by the Ministry of Justice or the King." The SJC is a tribunal of eleven judges. It is divided into a Permanent and a General Commission of five judges each. The eleventh judge, its president, is the Minister of Justice. The Court of Appeals is the highest appellate tribunal for the Shari'a courts. It has jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters. The decisions of the Court of Appeals are final if approved by the Minister of Justice" If the Minister of Justice does not approve, and the disagreement persists, the Minister can take the matter to the SJC which renders a final disposition on the case. The decisions of the Court of Appeals are made by majority vote and are announced by a panel of three judges, except in cases of beheading, stoning, and amputation, which are issued by a panel of five. General Courts are courts of general original jurisdiction and are competent to hear all civil and criminal cases except for cases statutorily assigned to another tribunal. Their creation, location, and jurisdiction are determined by the Minister of Justice on recommendation of the SJC. The decisions of the General Courts are issued by one judge, except in sentences of beheading, stoning, and amputation, which are issued by a panel of three. Limited Courts are competent to hear cases that fall below the monetary or punishment threshold for General Court jurisdiction. The creation, location, and jurisdiction of the Limited Courts are determined by the Minister of Justice on recommendation of the SJC. The decisions of this court are issued by one judge. In addition to the Shari'a Courts, which have general subject matter jurisdiction, there are a number of administrative and quasi-judicial tribunals in Saudi Arabia. These tribunals have limited jurisdictional powers, conferred by royal decree, and operate independently from the Ministry of Justice. Examples are the Commission for the Settlement of Commercial Disputes and the Committee for the Settlement of Labor Disputes. Another such tribunal is the Board of Grievances (diwan almazalim). The Board of Grievances has both judicial and non judicial functions. As a non-judicial body, the Board investigates and examines complaints against the government. The Board then issues a memorandum detailing the complaint, the results of the investigation, and the recommended course of action. The Board does not have the power to enforce its recommendations." In recent years, the jurisdiction of the Board has been expanded to review decisions rendered by the Shari'a courts, particularly when the partiality of the judge is in issue. The Board also has a limited judicial capacity and has jurisdiction over the execution of foreign judgments from other countries of the Arab League.

3. Saudi criminal law

Saudi criminal law is part of Islamic Shari'a and therefore originates from the Quran and the Sunna as well as from other sources such as Ijma (Consensus of Opinion), Qiyas (legal analogy), Istihsan (Equity), Muslaha Mursala (Textually Unspecified Interest of the Public), Sad Al-Dharai' (Avoidance of Harm), and Istishab (Compatibility of Means and Ends). The first principle of Saudi criminal law is legality: "The fundamental principle is that everything is permissible (Halab unless it is specifically prohibited, condemned, disapproved, or frowned upon." The lack of a well-defined penal code, however, seriously undermines this principle of legality.

4. Shari'a Crimes and Punishments

Although Saudi Arabia has no penal code, Islamic law does define three general categories of crimes. These are hudud (Boundary) Crimes, qisas (Equality) Crimes, and taazir (Reform) Crimes. The recognized hudud crimes include: consumption of alcohol, theft, armed robbery, adultery, defamation, and apostasy from Islam. Hudud crimes have fixed punishments, specified in the Quran and the Sunna, leaving the judge with no disciplinary discretion. No authority may pardon someone convicted of a hudud crime. Because hudud crimes carry penalties of death or corporal punishment, strict evidentiary and procedural requirements must be met before a sentence is imposed and the punishment implemented. Circumstantial evidence, for example, is not admissible in the prosecution of hudud crimes; there must be eyewitnesses." in fact, some hudud crimes require two to four witnesses before the accused may be found guilty. There are five qisas crimes: murder, voluntary killing, involuntary killing, intentional physical injury or maiming, and unintentional physical injury or maiming. The punishment for Qisas crimes also are prescribed in the Quran and the Sunna.Qisas means "equality" or "equivalence."' "It implies that a person who has committed a given violation will be punished in the same way and by the same means that he used in harming another person."" These crimes are punishable by retaliation or, if the family of the victim chooses, by monetary compensation. Ta'azir crimes include attempted robbery, usury, false testimony, and corruption. Punishment for ta'azir crimes is discretionary. Taazir means to chastise or to reform." The judge or the ruler has considerable latitude in determining the nature of punishment, and the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence differ regarding the "type of penalties, their application and the extent of judicial discretion. The Saudi Government follows the strict Wahhabi interpretation of the Shari'a as a guideline for criminal sentencing. This school of thought requires specific harsh punishments for certain crimes. The punishment for theft, for example, is amputation of the right hand, and other prescribed punishments include: for fornication by a single person, 100 lashes; for fornication by a married person, death by stoning; for one who makes an unproved accusation of fornication, 80 lashes; for highway robbery, either execution, crucifixion, cross-amputation (amputation of a hand and foot from opposite sides of the body), or banishment from the land; for intoxication, 40 lashes; for apostasy, execution; for murder, either death or compensation, depending on the wishes of the victim's family; and for assault or battery, equivalent retaliation or compensation, depending upon the wishes of the victim's family. Notwithstanding recognized Shari'a mandates, the Minnesota Lawyers Committee opposes the death penalty in all parts of the world and under any circumstances as a matter of concern for the promotion and protection of human rights. Opposition to the death penalty reflects the current international trend toward abolition, and is consistent with existing and emerging international human rights standards.

II. PROCEDURAL FAILURES AND ABUSES IN THE SAUDI LEGAL SYSTEM

A. Lack of Judicial Independence

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charges against him. The 1975 Judicial Law of Saudi Arabia guarantees a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal." In practice, however, the judiciary has no real independence. The King is the ultimate political authority and, for practical purposes, the legal authority as well. He appoints the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Judges of the Court of Appeals, and every other judge in the country. These judges also may be removed at any time by royal decree. The power of the King to appoint and remove any judge at will seriously undermines the independence and credibility of the Saudi judiciary. The role of the Minister of Justice as President of the Supreme Judicial Council further reduces the judiciary's independence. Saudi judges are "aware of and reportedly have on occasion acceded to the power and influence of the royal family and their associates. Interviews conducted by the Minnesota Lawyers Committee with experts on Saudi law, Saudi nationals, and foreign workers confirm doubts that the Saudi judiciary can deliver fair and unbiased decisions in cases in which the royal family takes an interest or in significant political matters. Equally disturbing is the very close connection between the court system and the various police services of the Interior Ministry. The courts in many instances are an extension of the security system rather than independent and impartial tribunals which give people an opportunity to a fair hearing. During the bloody events of Mecca in 1979, for example, eleven Egyptian students were making the pilgrimage when fighting occurred in the vicinity. One of the Egyptians was a medical student who attempted to administer first aid to some of the wounded. He was arrested for his effort and later brought before a judge with a group of fifty other detainees. The judge asked the group collectively whether they assisted the rebellion, but did not listen to any individual responses and conducted no independent fact-finding. All of the accused were summarily sentenced to 15 years in jail. The only apparent evidence supporting the guilt of the accused were the statements of security police. The judge in this case did not confront the accused with the evidence against them, nor did he question the accuracy of the police account. In a 1990 case, a Saudi citizen was sentenced to nearly a year imprisonment and over 150 lashes allegedly for smuggling books contrary to Islam into Saudi Arabia, breaching internal security, and disobeying the will of the King. According to the defendant, the judge never saw the books. Customs officials destroyed the books soon after their seizure and never claimed they were contrary to Islam. It was the prosecutor who labled the books contrary to Islam, though even he did not see them. The judge rubber-stamped the prosecutor's version of events and found the man guilty. There was no corroborating evidence to confirm the prosecution's story or to resolve the conflicting accounts of the prosecutor and the defendant.

B. Inequality before the Law

All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law. All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled. Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of Islamic law which Saudi Arabia disregards in practice. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee's investigation of the Saudi judicial system revealed an unequal application of the law as applied to both Saudi citizens and foreigners. The King and the royal family theoretically are bound by the Quran. In practice there is very little restriction on the King's authority. In all matters on which the Quran or the Sunna are silent, the King can regulate freely. Because of his unchecked legislative and executive power, and ultimate power over the judiciary, he can suspend, modify, ignore, or repeal any law or regulation. Hence, the King is largely immune from the application of the law. Moreover, "Members of the royal family, and of other powerful families, are not subject to the same legal constraints other Saudis." Princes and other influential persons, for example, may not be subject to inspection on entering the country. Further, the royal family can use the police and the judiciary to their personal advantage. Because a segment of society can use the law to its personal advantage, personalities are much more important . . . than institutions or rules and regulations . . . . Who one knows in Saudi Arabia is far more important than knowledge of basic legal rights or guarantees.

Likewise, legal remedies are of little value when used against persons of power or position. One person interviewed by the Committee described how his refusal to forego a debt owed to him by a prince led to his imprisonment and torture. In another interview, it was reported that the sons of a certain prince vacationing in Taif abducted girls off the street, raped them, and later dumped them elsewhere on the street. Even though the identity of the aggressors was known, the families of the victims were unable to prosecute because the aggressors were members of the royal family.

The law in Saudi Arabia also is applied unequally between Saudis and foreigners. In an automobile accident, for example, a different compensation scale is applied depending on whether the victim is a Saudi. A Saudi victim receives three to four times more compensation than a foreign victim." The unequal application of Saudi law even extends to the treatment between foreigners from different countries of origin. Westerners from the United States or the United Kingdom, for example, generally receive more generous compensation than Asians or Africans.

C. Lack of Written Codes of Law

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Although the Shari'a defines certain conduct as criminal and establishes specific punishments for that conduct, there does not exist in Saudi Arabia an explicit penal code. Modem crimes such as electronic wiretapping, computer fraud, criminal vehicular conduct, certain crimes against state security, and trafficking in modem arms and drugs require definition in an explicit penal code to prevent arbitrary government action. Because of pressure from the educated elite and the exigencies of modem business, King Fahd has recognized the need to provide precise codification in other areas of Saudi law. He has, for example, proposed the legislation of regulations concerning business transactions and civil litigation." Such reform is slow, however, and it is in the criminal justice system, and in the context of social and political rights, where the lack of codification is particularly problematic from a human rights perspective. Because Saudi law does not explicitly define which rights citizens and foreign residents may confidently exercise and which conduct is criminal, the opportunity for arbitrary government action is extensive. Government officials may freely declare nearly any activity or conduct illegal or contrary to national security. The lack of codification also increases reliance on the intervention of influential individuals, and thereby undermines the existing judicial institutions and increases the potential for abuse. This lack of codification is especially problematic for foreign workers from developing countries who are defenseless when they encounter a legal problem with a Saudi citizen.

III. ARBITRARY ARREST, INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION, AND TORTURE

The Saudi criminal justice system is characterized by arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, torture, coerced confessions, and sham trials. The Ministry of the Interior oversees most of the various security forces which maintain internal security and enforce the law in Saudi Arabia. These agencies are the primary perpetrators of most of the abuses and include the Public Security Police and Al-Mabahith al-Ammah (General Directorate of Investigations).

The primary police agency is the "Public Security Police" (Al-Shurtah). The Public Security Police has branches throughout Saudi Arabia through a system of directorates at the provincial and local levels. Although the Director General for Public Security has responsibility over all police units, provincial governors have "considerable autonomy in public security matters." The agency has wide authority to investigate, apprehend, and refer cases to court.
Of the other agencies with law enforcement powers, the two most widely used are the Mutawwi'un (Religious Police) and Al-Mabahith al-Ammah. The Mutawwi'un are the enforcing arm of the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Discouragement of Vice. This Committee is a semi-independent governmental institution which answers directly to the King, but which also "completely coordinates" its activities with the various security agencies at the Ministry of the Interior. The Mutawwi'un enforce religious requirements and general moral precepts. They also act as an investigative body and refer cases to the courts. It is not required that Mutawwi'un agents have any formal training; they need only have a general knowledge of the Shari'a. The Mutawwi'un have gained notoriety among both foreigners and Saudis for their sometimes brutal enforcement of religious norms. They have been known to patrol streets carrying big sticks which they have used to castigate those who run afoul of Islamic precepts. During times of prayer, for example, they have been reported to hit those who were not praying. In another reported incident, the Mutawwi'un broke into a French compound and beat those inside for having a private party.

Much less is known about al-Mabahith al-Ammah (the General Directorate of Investigation or Political Police). Political opposition groups, however, report that most political arrests are carried out by al-Mabahith, whose agents generally dress in civilian clothes. Al-Mabahith appears to do most of the information gathering and surveillance for the Saudi Government with a network of informants throughout the country. It has authority to arrest, detain, and interrogate any suspected political opponent without a warrant at any time. The use of al-Mabahith increased dramatically after the 1979 Iranian revolution and riots of November 1979 in Mecca. Over the years, a pattern has emerged whereby individuals suspected of being members of opposition groups have been arrested by al-Mabahith al-Ammah.

A. Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. It is not permitted without legitimate reason to arrest an individual, or restrict his freedom, to exile or to punish him. One of the most common and persistent complaints against the Saudi Government by both Saudis and foreigners is arbitrary arrest and detention. Each branch of the security forces, including the Mutawwi'un, has authority to arrest and detain people at its discretion. In 1983 the Interior Ministry issued a "Statute of Principles of Stop, Arrest, Temporary Confinements, and Preventive Detention, which is believed to be in force and to apply in all cases. Under the Statute of Principles, the police have authority to arrest and detain any person in a situation giving rise to suspicion. This wide discretion given to police lies at the heart of arbitrary arrest and detention in Saudi Arabia. Arbitrary arrest is a particularly serious problem for suspected political dissidents, foreigners, and the Shi'a religious minority. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee interviewed many Saudi political dissidents who were detained, interrogated, and tortured by al-Mabahith.

One Saudi interviewee, a leader of a Shi'a religious organization, was arrested in the late-1980's after a celebration of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. This man's story illustrates the wide array of human rights violations to which one may be subject in Saudi Arabia. The al-Mabahith raided the man's house, confiscated Shi'a pamphlets, arrested the man, and took him to the prison at Dammam. At the prison, he was confined to a three by four foot room, forced to remain standing, and not allowed to sleep for three consecutive days and nights. Members of the al-Mabahith then repeatedly interrogated the man regarding his "crimes against the Wahhabi government. His interrogators beat him all over his body and demanded repeatedly that he sign a confession which declared him an "unfit citizen" for having committed crimes against the Saudi Government. Each time the man refused to sign the confession, he was beaten and returned to the small room. The man endured six weeks of interrogations, beatings, and confinement in the room until he finally signed the confession papers. Shortly after signing the papers, the man was brought before a Shari'a court, where he was told he must confess orally to the crimes contained in his written confession. The man was instructed that, should he refuse, he would again be imprisoned and the beatings would continue. The man confessed orally and was released. Throughout his imprisonment, the man was served two meals per day consisting of humus and water. While at Dammam, he was held completely incommunicado. Two years later, the same Saudi man attended a similar celebration of a Shi'a religious holiday. The al-Mabahith discovered him and four of his friends. The man escaped that night, but the al-Mabahith killed his four friends. One of the former interrogators later telephoned him and ordered him to appear at Dammam the following day. He failed to appear and later that evening the al-Mabahith surrounded his family's house and the houses of several friends and stormed them searching for the man. Members of the al-Mabahith found him and arrested him, taking him back to Dammam. His captors again interrogated him and threatened that unless he cooperated he would be killed like his friends. He was subjected to more beatings, especially on the soles of his feet. The man's feet were tied together to a long stick and he was hung upside down and beaten. His captors continuously cursed him and all members of the Shi'a community and asked for additional names of those participating in Shi'a ceremonies. At one point, the man was submerged in icy water for approximately 30 minutes and then plunged immediately into steaming hot water. This technique was used to open the pores of his skin so that various peppers and spices could be applied and would bum painfully. The man ultimately confessed to further misdeeds and was later released. The al-Mabahith continued to monitor his activities, however, and interrogated him on occasion about upcoming Shi'a religious celebrations. The man knows of Saudi friends who apparently did not break down and sign confessions - they were killed in prison. Another Saudi interviewed by the Committee had been arrested four times. His first arrest occurred when he was with some friends in a car, coming from school. The police told them gatherings of more than two people were illegal. The second and third arrests occurred when he was talking with friends on the street. These arrests were the product of general government sweeps of his Shi'a neighborhood. The fourth arrest occurred in his home where the police had come looking for him. The police never had a warrant for his arrest. Still another Saudi, away from the country at the time, told how the secret police came looking for him but arrested and tortured his brother instead. Similarly, a woman describes in her memoirs how four masked secret police came in the middle of the night to her family's house to arrest her. They had no warrant to search or arrest. They forced themselves into the house, searched all the rooms, arrested her, and took her to Dammam prison. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee also learned of cases where the arrests occurred at the ports of entry to Saudi Arabia. In several cases Saudi Shi'a students pursuing their religious studies in Iran and Syria were arrested as they entered Saudi Arabia at the Riyadh airport, the Jordanian-Saudi border, or at the Kuwaiti-Saudi border. In none of the cases did the arresting authorities provide a basis for the arrests. In another incident, police arrested an entire Shi'a family at the Bahraini border without a single word to explain the basis for the arrest. Shi'a religious leaders, suspected sympathizers of the Islamic Revolution Organization, the Party of God in Hijaz, and the Arab Socialist Labor Party in the Arabian Peninsula also have been subject to arbitrary arrests by the Saudi authorities.

On September 24, 1989, nine Shi'a in Al-Awamiyah were arrested for attempting to organize the religious celebration of AlAshura. Among those arrested were Muhammad Abdul Kareem al-Faraj, an eighteen-year-old student, and Abdulla Ali Mousa, a twenty-nine-year-old employee of Aramco. The Committee also learned of the arbitrary arrest of six Shi'a students in 1989 after a fire in student housing at the University of King Saud in Riyadh. One student was released, but the other five were kept in prison where they reportedly endured torture until confessing to arson.
To be subject to arbitrary arrest, one does not need to hold political beliefs contrary to the government. 121 it is sufficient that one carries a book or an audio or videotape considered political to be imprisoned. For instance, one Saudi citizen was arrested at Jeddah airport in 1985 for possessing political books. During the 1991 gulf war, the Saudi Government arrested thousands of Yemenis at their homes, schools, and workplaces. The arrests of the Yemenis appear to have been based strictly on their national origin and the stand of the Yemeni Government toward the gulf war. According to a U.S. reporter, the Saudi Government also arbitrarily arrested Sudanese nationals.

B. Continued Detention of War Refugees

Not only are suspected criminals and political dissidents arbitrarily arrested and detained in Saudi Arabia, even war refugees are not safe from such practices. Saudi authorities continue to detain in isolated desert camps more than 54,000 refugees who fled Iraq during the gulf war. These Iraqis sought refuge in Saudi Arabia because of their opposition to the Iraqi Government. The Saudis detained these refugees and held them in detention camps in the desert, surrounded by barbed wire, and cut off from the outside world, where they remain today living in tents. There are three refugee camps in the Saudi desert under the direct supervision of the Saudi Government. The camps are run by the International Islamic Relief Organization. The camp with the largest population is Rajha, with 20,928 civilian detainees, including 11,070 men,@ 3990 women, 5868 children under 12 years of age, 171 Afghans, 7 Turkomans, 12 Kurds, and 13 Christians.

The second camp is Artiwiyaha, containing approximately 12,000 civilians in three sections. One section houses Christians and Sunni Muslims; a second section houses approximately 270 Kurds; and the third section, representing 90% of the camp population, houses Shi'a Muslim refugees.The third camp is formerly a prisoner of war camp for Iraqi military prisoners and deserters. The remaining 22,000 men in the camp are no longer considered prisoners of war and have been reclassified as refugees by the Saudi authorities and intemational organizations. An outbreak of disturbances in the camps in December 1991 reportedly is linked to the Saudi security forces efforts forcibly to return detainees to Iraq.Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United States Government have made several visits to the refugee camps. The Saudi Government is negotiating with the U.S. State Department and international organizations to establish a UNHCR presence in the camps, and to register the detainees for possible resettlement to third countries where they have family ties. The Saudi Government has invited a delegation of United States senators to visit the camps in May 1992. These camps hold an estimated 32,000 Iraqis, including many women, children, the old, and infirm. The Saudi Government has never explained the basis for its arrest and continued detention of these Iraqis.

C. Torture and Coerced Confessions

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishments. It is not permitted to subject [an individual] to physical or psychological torture or to any form of humiliation, cruelty or indignity. A serious and widespread abuse of human rights in the Saudi criminal justice system is the practice of coercing confessions through torture. The strict evidentiary demands of Islamic penal law require either the testimony of witnesses or a confession for conviction of certain offenses."' Consequently, Saudi police and prosecutors routinely demand that suspects confess to their alleged crimes. When suspects refuse, they are intimidated, harassed, repeatedly tortured, and may be held without trial indefinitely until they confess. It seems to matter little that Islamic criminal procedure does not recognize coerced confessions as valid. In November 1983, for example, Rodolfo M. Albano, a Filipino national, was arrested, allegedly for murdering his coworker. Albano was interrogated day and night by two officers. During the interrogation, Albano was beaten, kicked all over his body, and burned with cigarettes on his hands and genitals. His Saudi torturers also hung him upside down and repeatedly beat him with a wooden rod. Finally, under threats to his life, Albano confessed to a crime he had not committed. The confession was written in Arabic, and Albano did not understand what he had confessed.

Another case is that of Benito Bernardino, also a Filipino national. In September 1985, the police searched Bernadino's house and found marijuana in a roommate's briefcase. The police demanded to know the whereabouts of his two roommates but Bernadino did not know. The police slapped him on the face and ears; they then hit and kneed him on the chest. The beating continued for an hour before Bemadino was taken to Dammam Drug Detention Center. During his detention Bernadino was interrogated under torture. The torture consisted of beatings on the soles of his feet (falaqa), sleep deprivation, and forced standing for prolonged periods of time. The interrogators also repeatedly submerged Bernadino's head in the toilet. After 12 days of beating and torture, Bernadino involuntarily confessed to selling drugs.

Several Saudi interviewees were tortured at Dammam prison in the last ten years. At Dammam, methods of torture include sleep deprivation, beatings including falaqa, forced standing for long periods, and hot and cold water followed by irritating spices on the skin. Systematic torture is applied not only to obtain confessions, but also to force victims to provide information on other individuals who also are targets of investigation.

One interviewee, a Saudi Shi'a man, was arrested and interrogated at Dammam about a relative who allegedly had ties to the political opposition in Saudi Arabia. "' The interrogation promptly turned to torture after the man professed no knowledge of his relative's activities. The man and his friend, who also was in custody at Dammam, were not permitted to sleep for five consecutive days and nights. Each night, members of the al-Mabahith interrogated the two men. The interviewee was accused of writing slogans for the opposition and attending anti-government demonstrations. Hot tea was poured on the man's face and he was subjected to falaqa beatings. One night, the man was shackled to a wall with his feet unable to touch the floor for six to eight hours. During the interrogation sessions, two interrogators were always present. One interrogator would ask questions in a kind manner while the other would be harsh. The harsh interrogator would strike the Shi'a man if he gave negative answers. The man was in solitary confinement for nearly half of the six weeks he was held at Dammam. Another Saudi interviewee who was incarcerated at Dammam was held in a two by two foot room containing a toilet which overflowed with sewage. The man was given no food for the first three days of his detention, after which he was provided with only bread and water. Members of the al-Mabahith interrogated and beat him each night, asking for the names of participants in Shi'a celebrations. The man was often stripped of his clothes, led out behind the prison, and forced to stand on a barrel while his captors threw icy water on him. If he fell off the barrel, the man was beaten and forced to remount the barrel. The man endured three weeks of torture, including electric shocks, whipping with cables, and falaqa beatings, before he signed the confession papers. Some interviewees spoke of relatives who had suffered torture or ill-treatment at the hands of the al-Mabahith or other Saudi officials. One man's relative had been arrested five times during the 1980's for alleged political activities and for "preaching unacceptable Shi'a ideas. ,14' The relative had been detained at Dammam prison for months at a time. On one occasion, the man visited his relative at Dammam. His relative had been incarcerated for about a month and obviously had been physically beaten, with many teeth broken and blood stains on his clothing.

One interviewee's brother was arrested in the mid-1980's and tortured severely while spending four months in prison. The brother refuses to speak to other family members about the torture he suffered. The interviewee indicated that his brother's back is badly scarred. He believes his brother was beaten with objects, such as an ashtray and electric cables. His brother continues to experience great pain, which requires continuing medication and massage treatments.

Another interviewee said the typical interrogation pattern consisted of questioning by a chief interrogator and several assistants. The assistants hit prisoners with blunt objects and beat them until they would change their answer. Beatings might be entirely random and not prompted by a particular response. Sometimes prisoners' heads were submerged in toilets. Other times, according to the interviewee, unspecified drugs were administered to the prisoners. In some cases, prisoners were taken to the hospital because of the severity of the beatings. A special section of a Dammam hospital was set aside for these cases with a private staff of doctors. Often, the prisoners' injuries required that they remain at the hospital for several days. Many other cases of torture and ill-treatment in custody have been reported. One widely reported case ended with the death of Zahra al Nasser, who was arrested with her husband at the Hudaitha checkpoint on the Saudi-Jordanian border on July 15, 1989. Upon searching al Nasser, police found a picture of the Ayatollah Khomeini and a Shi'a prayer book. She was held at the Hudaitha check-point detention center where she was tortured. Zahra al Nasser died on July 18, 1989, and her tortured body was returned to her family.
Another incident involved a woman who publicly promoted more rights for women. Her husband was imprisoned and tortured first, and later the woman herself was arrested and tortured. She was forced to remain in a tiny cell and stand for long periods of time on a broken leg. In addition to receiving beatings on her face, she was given approximately twenty injections of an unknown substance with a syringe.

The woman's cousin also was imprisoned, along with her one-year-old baby. During the incarceration, the child suffered an injury which left it with permanent mental injury. Similarly, the Committee learned of a pregnant woman who miscarried in prison because of her ill-treatment.

One interviewee, who himself had been arrested several times, believes that all persons detained in Saudi Arabian prisons are subjected to some form of torture or ill-treatment unless they are willing to sign a confession. According to the individual, detainees are told they must sign a confession before they will be permitted to leave. The interviewee was willing only to discuss the psychological abuse he endured during his detention. The man was subjected to solitary confinement in a small cell for long periods of time. He heard screams throughout the night and he feared greatly for his life. The man's only human contact came at mealtime when a guard would bring him his food. The man found himself hallucinating under these conditions and often screamed out, wanting badly to talk with another person. He would feign illness just so that he could have someone with whom to share a few words. 154 The man was in solitary confinement for about a month before the al-Mabahith began to interrogate him. His interrogators insisted he sign a confession which stated he had participated in illegal demonstrations and plotted to overthrow the Saudi Government. When he refused to sign the confession, his captors beat him and said save yourself by signing this paper.

D. Incommunucado Detention, Lack of Defense Counsel, and Denial of Fair and Public Trials.

Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. A defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven in a fair trial in which he shall be given all the guarantees of defense.In none of the cases of which the Minnesota Lawyers Committee has knowledge were criminal defendants provided legal representation at any stage of the criminal process. Defendants have to represent themselves, but encounter serious difficulties because they often are denied communication with the outside world.In political cases, detainees are kept in strict incommunicado detention without access to lawyers, family, or friends. In nonpolitical cases, the defendants generally are allowed to make phone calls to contact family members or friends. Foreigners usually may contact their embassies, but the Saudi Government often discriminates against Arab or Asian workers, who can be in prison for an extended period of time before they are permitted to contact anyone. According to one report, it is frequent that family or friends will not find loved ones who have suddenly disappeared for days until they have searched at all the police detention facilities.

One interviewee, who had been incarcerated at Dammam prison, indicated that detainees rarely were permitted visits from persons outside the prison. Those detainees who occasionally were permitted visits usually already had been imprisoned for more than a year or were severely tortured. Likewise, although the Judicial Code specifically declares trials to be public, they are in fact closed to the public. Defense attorneys are not allowed in courtrooms and the accused usually appears alone (or with an interpreter) before the judge who tries the case and imposes a sentence.
In political cases, trials not only are closed but are secret as well. Before 1980, in fact, there were no trials at all for those suspected of political offenses - they were simply tortured and, after confessing, punished and released. After 1980, the government began having sham trials to legitimize the arrests. The judges simply relied on the confession and imposed a sentence. Frequently the prisoner and the family are unaware even of the crime alleged to have been committed and how long the sentence is to be. According to one interviewee, trials at Dammam occurred once a week and prisoners were told by their captors prior to appearing before the judge to keep their oral testimony consistent with their signed confession. The Minnesota Lawyers Committee learned of no cases that went to trial without a confession.

Further, because the trials of political defendants are secret, the defendants are unable to challenge before a higher tribunal the lawfulness of their arrests, imprisonment, or convictions - there simply is no record to challenge. With the possible exception of a royal pardon, there is no legal remedy available as a matter of right to those who are wrongly convicted.

IV. TREATMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS

The employee shall have the right to safety and security as well as to all other social guarantees. He may neither be assigned work beyond his capacity nor be subjected to compulsion or exploited or harmed in any way. He shall be entitled - without any discrimination between males and females - to fair wages for his work without delay, as well as to the holidays allowances and promotions which he deserves.

The frenetic pace of development in Saudi Arabia since the start of the oil boom has required many foreign workers. In fact, foreigners employed as guest workers in Saudi Arabia now account for a significant share of the resident population. One 1985 account estimated Saudi Arabia's labor force at 4.4 million, of which 2.7 million were foreign workers. A more recent appraisal estimates that 3.5 to 4 million of Saudi Arabia's current labor pool of 7 to 8 million are foreigners, most from developing nations; another estimates 4 to 5 million of such foreign workers.

Saudi Arabia, however, is a society with significant xenophobic tendencies and the presence of millions of foreign workers is therefore politically controversial. The Saudi Government periodically attempts to limit the size of the foreign work force in an effort to restrict the foreign cultural and political influence. During the Second Economic Development Plan, launched by Saudi Arabia in 1975, there was an attempt to limit the foreign work force to an annual growth rate of not more than 1.2%.

In addition to attempting to limit foreign labor, the Saudis have switched from a preference for importing primarily Arab foreign labor to a preference for Asian labor because of the perceived political threat from the influence of other Arab nations. Indeed, by 1980 Asia had become Saudi Arabia's main source of foreign labor. One report estimates that Asians account for more than 60 percent of the 7.6 million foreign workers in the gulf region. In the wake of the 1990-91 gulf war, Saudi Arabia has continued to reduce the number of Arab foreign workers, particularly those from countries friendly to Iraq, such as Jordan, Sudan, and Yemen. In September 1990, for example, the Saudi Government issued restrictive employment regulations that resulted in the mass exodus of an estimated 800,000 Yemeni workers. There were also mass terminations of Palestinians and Jordanians.

Despite the Saudi Government's efforts to limit the number and influence of foreign workers, by most estimates foreign workers in Saudi Arabia now account for at least 50% of the total work force. An analysis of the treatment of these workers and their living conditions is therefore essential to a comprehensive study of the situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia.

A. Working- Conditions and Abuses

The Minnesota Lawyers Committee's study of the human rights situation of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia found that most foreign workers receive poor treatment. Continuing patterns of societal prejudice in Saudi Arabia, however, based on sex or national or ethnic origin, create an especially bad situation for workers from developing countries, generally, and for female workers, in particular. The Committee conducted most of its research on foreign laborers from the Philippines. It is estimated that in 1989, over one million Filipinos worked as contract laborers in Saudi Arabia. Nearly everyone interviewed by the Committee regarding the treatment of foreign workers noted that workers from Western countries receive better treatment from Saudi citizens and the Saudi Government than do workers from Asian, African, and other Arab countries. This situation is aggravated by the need of the workers' countries of origin to maintain the flow of foreign currency from their workers abroad. As a consequence, those governments traditionally have overlooked the abuses committed against their nationals working in Saudi Arabia. The 1990-91 gulf war also exacerbated the human rights abuses inflicted on these foreign workers. There were widespread reports of Saudi employers refusing to allow Asian foreign workers to leave the country by withholding their passports and tickets. Asian foreign workers were the last to receive gas masks.

1. Contract Substitution

The most widespread abuse which foreign workers suffer upon entry into Saudi Arabia is contract substitution. Contract substitution occurs when, after arrival in Saudi Arabia, the employer presents the worker with a contract different from the contract signed at the recruitment agency in the sending country. Some substituted contracts purport already to bear the worker's signature.

Often the Saudi employer forgoes the formality and simply tells the foreign worker that the new (lower) wage will apply and the new job duties will be performed while in Saudi Arabia."' Frequently the original employment contract provides for overtime pay and rest and leisure. In practice, these contractual safeguards are either ignored, or unilaterally stricken from the contract once the worker arrives in Saudi Arabia.

Often, when the workers learn of the contract substitution, they already have surrendered their passports and are at their employer's place of business. Because foreign workers may not seek employment with anyone but their sponsor, and because the workers already have paid travel expenses and recruitment agency fees, many accept the lower wages without complaint. The workers who do demand to return home because of contract substitution often do not have the money for their return travel.

2. Long Hours and Delay in Payment

Delay in payment of wages for periods of weeks and months is commonplace for foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. Two Filipino interviewees reported engaging in informal collective action because they and fellow workers were not being paid by their employers. One worker was fired and the other resigned. Both were stranded in Saudi Arabia for an additional two months before their employers would provide them with exit visas. Neither received any wages for the two month delay. Their treatment is not unusual. One man stated that each time he or a coworker aired a complaint to their employer it was considered a "violation," and each violation was considered justification for a deduction in salary. in another documented case, a Filipino was paid for only four of the seven months he worked for his employer. Saudi Government decrees forbid the formation of labor unions and strike activity. Dismissal, imprisonment, or expulsion follow most attempts at organizing by foreign workers. Many foreign laborers work extremely long hours. In particular, the domestic servants interviewed by the Minnesota Lawyers Committee all reported working seven days per week, sometimes 12-18 hours per day. Most other Filipino workers, many of whom work in construction or other heavy industry, also work long hours without overtime, six days per week.

3. Lack of Redress

Should workers and employers disagree on any matter, the State shall intervene to settle the dispute and have the grievances redressed, the rights confirmed and justice enforced without bias. Although the Saudi Labor Code prohibits many of the abuses inflicted on foreign workers, the worker who is victimized by contract substitution or overtime and hour violations of the Saudi Labor Code is offered little assistance by the Saudi Government. Most of the workers the Committee interviewed were not even aware they had any right to lodge complaints with Saudi labor officials.

When foreign workers do complain to Saudi labor officials about contract substitution, delay in receiving salary, or physical abuse, the results are mixed. Often, the Saudi labor officials refuse to speak English or to provide a translator for the foreign worker. Two workers interviewed by the Committee did receive some assistance from Saudi authorities when their employers refused to pay their wages.

One worker's contract called for her to work for a family in Taif as a seamstress at $258 per month. When she arrived at her employer's residence in Taif, she learned that her salary was only $150 per month and that, in addition to her sewing duties, she was expected to work as a domestic servant. When she complained to her employer's daughter, she was beaten by her employer.

The worker left the family home one day and made her way to what she referred to as the "Saudi Labor Office" in Taif. The labor official with whom she spoke wrote a letter to her employer informing the employer she must stop beating the worker and that she must pay her proper wages. The letter was followed by a visit from a Saudi labor official who cautioned the employer that she would be taken to jail if she did not stop beating her employee. There was, however, no further follow-up and nothing changed for this worker, who left Saudi Arabia never having received her full wages. In addition, the woman had to suffer sexual propositions from two of the officials with whom she spoke at the Saudi Labor Office.

In another case, a worker brought his complaint regarding delay of payment to the Saudi Labor Office. In his later statement to the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration he alleges that, as a consequence of a conciliation meeting arranged by the Saudi Labor Office, his employment contract was torn up by the employer's representative. He further alleges he was imprisoned for three days and deported because of fabricated criminal charges. He paid his own airfare upon deportation.

Some Filipino workers lodge complaints about their working conditions and payment problems with their own embassy officials in Saudi Arabia. Others simply do not know where to direct their complaints or are afraid of retribution. Indeed, one interviewee who complained to the Philippine embassy about the delay in receiving his salary was deported when his employer found out about his complaints.

Another interviewee complained to the Philippine embassy when his employer deducted from his salary the hospital expenses incurred from a work-related accident. The time he spent out of work and in the hospital also was deducted from his salary. After hearing about the complaint, his employer called the police. The police arrested the worker who spent two days in jail before he was deported.

Another worker told of complaining to his employer when he did not receive his salary. He also went to the Riyadh office of the agency that recruited him. After complaining, he was locked in his room for an entire month by his employer. He also was forced to sign a release before his employer would give him an exit visa and pay for his ticket home, as required by his contract.

B. Living Conditions

Generally, foreign workers from developing nations live in communal or dormitory settings while in Saudi Arabia. Some live in camps; others live in small apartments or barracks. Living conditions commonly are crowded and dirty. One interviewee working as an auto mechanic described his living quarter as a twelve-square-meter concrete shelter shared by three workers. Domestic servants live in the employer's dwelling, isolated from friends and other workers. Some domestic servants have their own room while others are forced to live in the pantry or laundry area. Many domestic servants tell of being locked inside their rooms at night, and locked inside the house when the family leaves.

1. Separation by Sex and Nationality

Foreigners working for large corporations in Saudi Arabia usually are segregated by nationality. Filipinos live with other Filipinos, Pakistanis with other Pakistanis, and so forth. Upon arrival at the international airport in Riyadh, officials immediately separate by sex the Filipino and other Asian foreign workers. During their entire stay in Saudi Arabia, sometimes for several years, foreign workers are strictly forbidden even to converse with members of the opposite sex. The Mutawwi'un harass and sometimes beat male foreign workers who dare to speak with a female in public. Some foreign workers report instances in which male and female foreign workers are jailed for speaking to one another in public.

One man reported he was arrested after making eye contact with a Saudi woman who walked past him on the street in a small town near the Saudi Arabia-Jordan border. The police warned him that he must never look at a woman on the street again. On another occasion, the same man was beaten by an agent of the Mutawwi'un after he attempted to converse with a Filipino woman in a store.

2. Restrictions on Travel and Exit

The movement of foreigners is very restricted in Saudi Arabia. All workers interviewed by the Committee had to relinquish their passports to their employers, or "sponsors," upon arrival at the airport. Foreign workers essentially become wards of their employer during their stay in Saudi Arabia. Many Saudi employers regularly abuse this system to exploit their economically vulnerable foreign employees. Hence, despite Saudi labor laws which ostensibly offer protection to both native and foreign workers, "situations that could be described as forced labor can occur, especially in remote areas where workers are unable to leave their place of work. Foreign workers are subject to arrest and deportation if caught on the streets of Saudi Arabia without a valid residency permit, or iqama, which they rely on their employer to provide. In addition, employees must receive permission from their employer and a travel permit if they wish to travel outside of the sector in which they work. Many women working as domestic servants are not permitted even to leave the home of their employer during their entire stay in the country. Exiting Saudi Arabia is as difficult as entering. Foreign workers must obtain exit visas from their Saudi employers. These workers sometimes languish in deportation centers or hide with friends, at times for months, until they can obtain an exit visa. Several interviewees spoke of having to ask their employers for permission to leave the country. Permission is not always granted.

3. Prohibition of the Practice of Religion

Non-Muslim foreign workers are not permitted to practice their religion while working in Saudi Arabia. Many foreign workers attempt to bring religious mementos and artifacts into Saudi Arabia. Several persons interviewed reported that Saudi border officials confiscated all religious artifacts including crosses, rosary beads, and holy cards. Those foreign workers who attempt to smuggle in religious artifacts or scripture risk arrest and deportation.Practicing any non-Muslim religion while in Saudi Arabia will subject the foreign worker to arrest, detention, and deportation. In addition, according to a Filipino who worked as a nurse's aide in a hospital in Medina, all overseas contract workers sent to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina are required to convert to and practice Islam while in Saudi Arabia.'06 Foreign workers in other Saudi cities are sometimes forced to attend Islamic religious services with their employers.

C. Abuses by the Security Forces

Virtually all foreign workers interviewed by the Committee expressed great fear of the Saudi police. According to some interviewees, beatings and floggings in Saudi jails regularly occur every Friday - the Islamic Day of United Prayer. Summary arrest and detention of foreign workers by Saudi authorities also is commonplace, without any apparent check on the discretion of the police to arrest for the slightest perceived impropriety. Saudi police, including the Mutawwi'un, frequently arrest foreign workers first and ask questions later particularly those workers from developing nations. All foreign workers interviewed by the Committee told of friends and colleagues who had been arrested while in Saudi Arabia. Some related accounts of their own arrests.

One man told of being jailed for not reporting to the police a theft he allegedly had witnessed. He was hit in the face and jailed for 18 hours before being released. Another worker reported that his friends were whipped and beaten while in a Saudi jail. Another man was arrested after a Saudi driver crashed into his car. He was arrested at the scene after the wife of the Saudi driver accused him of being at fault because "if [he] had not been in Saudi Arabia, there would not have been an accident.' His employer paid his bail after he had spent two days in jail and suffered a beating by three policemen. The employer deducted from his salary both the amount of the bail and the time he missed from work because of injuries from the police beating.

One worker reported that his friend was arrested merely because Saudi authorities found a letter he wrote in the apartment of another Filipino who also had been arrested. While in jail, Saudi authorities whipped him on the soles of his feet. One interviewee reported that a friend had been arrested merely for having reported a stolen tote bag to the authorities. The Saudi authorities hit the man, and when the his U.S. supervisor complained about the treatment, the supervisor also was arrested and jailed for two weeks. It is common for Saudi employers to threaten their foreign workers with police involvement in work-related disputes. One Saudi employer taunted his ill-treated employees by reminding them they would not receive any help from the Saudi authorities because he was well-connected and they were merely foreigners.

D. Domestic Servants

Most female foreign workers in Saudi Arabia are domestic servants, or "maids," who work in the private confines of an employer's home. The lack of legal protection for these women, combined with the private nature of their work environment, put them at even greater risk of abuse than other foreign workers. Domestic servants returning from Saudi Arabia routinely complain of being overworked, underpaid, and underfed by their employers. They also complain of beatings and sexual harassment, adding that there is nowhere to turn to remedy their situation. Many workers interviewed spoke of being locked inside their employer's house, even when the rest of the family was gone. The great majority of these women, moreover, do not receive an iqama and thus cannot leave the house of their employer even when the doors are not locked. Most domestic servants may not meet with or otherwise associate with anyone other than their employer, including other domestic servants in the area. Association with men is strictly prohibited, with stiff penalties ranging from beatings to deportation for being caught with an unrelated male. Typically, the foreign domestic servant in Saudi Arabia is the first to rise in the morning and the last to retire at night. Although specific responsibilities vary from case to case, she generally performs all household chores, including cooking, cleaning, child care, and sewing. It is not uncommon for a domestic servant to be forced to perform these duties for more than one family or household. There are reports that domestic servants sometimes must work 12-16 hours per day, seven days per week.

One young woman worked as a domestic servant in Dammam from March until November 1990. She worked from 7:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. doing a variety of household chores, but was not allowed rest breaks during the day. When she would request a rest, her employer would respond, "You are not allowed to rest because I am paying you." She was allowed only one full meal of rice and chicken per day at 2:00 p.m., although occasionally she was given tea and a piece of bread for dinner.

The young woman slept on the floor in a stock room without air conditioning. Her employer paid her for the first time after four months of work, and then once again after two months. When she complained about her working conditions and asked to return to the Philippines, the employer withheld three months salary to pay for the airline ticket.
Her employer never permitted her to leave the house alone. When her employer left, she was locked inside the house. Her employer told her that if she went outside the house alone the police would arrest her. She was not permitted to fraternize or speak with other Filipino domestic workers living in Dammam.

Other domestic servants allege they received regular beatings if their employers were dissatisfied with their work or in a bad mood. Stories of beatings, sometimes with objects such as a hairbrush or a spike-heeled shoe, are not uncommon.

Representatives of the Minnesota Lawyers Committee reviewed in Manila the affidavits of many Filipino women after they had returned from Saudi Arabia. A sampling of these affidavits paints a grim picture of their life as Saudi Arabian domestic servants:

The Philippine Government is aware of the poor treatment of domestic servants in Saudi Arabia. A 1987 internal report from the Philippine embassy in Saudi Arabia describes the treatment of domestic servants:
[W]omen who are going to Saudi Arabia to work as domestic helper have no protection whatsoever. . . . It was our experience that female domestic helpers are helpless and subject to abuses because of the culture being practiced in The Kingdom. The Kingdom's concept of domestic helpers is still that of slave, having no rights whatsoever. They can be given away as presents. They can be maltreated and when they complain they are under the police jurisdiction and immediately land in jail even if they are the complainants. We were able to document abuses committed to our Filipina domestic helpers and reports to this effect were submitted praying the temporary banning of deployment to this kind of category. The arguments that were advanced by some proponents who are against the banning was financial support to our government thru the earnings of these domestic helpers. We are still saying that their earnings is not worth the problems we now encounter on these domestic helpers. Anyway, although we imposed $200 to $250 as their salaries, their employers are only giving them $100 to $150 instead. There is no way they can complain if they are already here as they are not allowed to talk to anybody while in the home of their employers. Their passports, by law in Saudi Arabia, remains with their employer. Exit visa can only be secured by their employers and when they are lucky to [e]scape and complain to our embassy, our hands were tied up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia. Through the issuance of a note verbale by ordering us to immediately turn over all runaway workers to the police authorities and ultimately to the Social Welfare Administration which is the equivalent of women's jail. Thus, it is almost a no win situation on these type of workers and they have to accede on the decision of their employers. Per our records we have documented 230 cases of abuse whether physical or sexual. We reiterate our strong recommendation to impose the total ban in the sending of female domestic helpers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In addition to complaints of sexual harassment, there is also ample evidence of physical abuse of domestic servants. In one recently reported case, a Filipino woman was repatriated after brutal abuse by her employer. The woman stated her

[E]mployer always punched me in the ears until they became infected and changed form. They also hit me until I bleed with the rope they tie around their head.... When they were hitting me with the cord of the flat iron, it hit my left pointed finger which got infected and had to be cut off by a doctor. They also burned my face with a flat iron, including my arms and legs. . . . They would pull my hair, they would not feed me until I lost all energy in my body. Even my teeth had fallen off because of the constant beating I got.

She arrived in the Philippines looking malnourished, with thinning hair, burns on her face, and with ears deformed from burns. Women who find the courage and the means to run away from their employers quickly learn that there is little help to be found either at the Philippine embassy or with the Saudi authorities. An agreement made between the Philippine and Saudi Governments describes the procedure for handling cases of domestic servants who escape their place of employment and seek refuge in the Philippine embassy with complaints of ill-treatment. The agreement provides that the Filipino officials are required to turn the women over to the Saudi authorities within twenty-four hours of their arrival at the embassy. The women are then taken to the Social Welfare Administration ("SWA," a jail for women) until "resolution" of the case. A Philippine embassy official, speaking anonymously, stated that many women were either sexually harassed or abused by SWA officials at the SWA facility. It is not uncommon for SWA officials to require that the Filipinos provide sexual favors in exchange for making a telephone call to the Philippine embassy. Some women remain in the SWA for months. Others stay until their employers are contacted and come to return them to the abusive environment. In cases where the women are forcibly returned to their employers, they tend to be punished or otherwise harshly treated for running away and lodging a complaint. In other cases the women are deported.

According to the complaints of seventeen women who were held at the SWA in 1989 and later deported, the time spent in the jail ranged from 3 days to 3 months. The women originally sought refuge at the Philippine embassy complaining of abuses such as attempted rape by an employer or employer's relative, ill treatment, physical assault or abuse, no salary for periods as long as 2 years and 2 months, overwork, lack of food, and contract substitution.

During the time that the women are locked away in the SWA, the embassy officials have only limited access to them, if they are granted access at all. In most cases, only immediate family members are allowed access to the women confined at the SWA, which for Filipinos, means no visitors at all.

E. International Protection of Migrant Workers

A new international treaty approved by the United Nations General Assembly, including the Saudi delegation, provides for the international protection of migrant workers. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families"' is the first comprehensive document to address the need to make further efforts to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers. Although Saudi Arabia is not yet a party to the Migrant Workers Convention, its General Assembly vote to adopt the convention indicates its approval of the emerging international norms in this area. It is only Saudi practice which has departed from those norms.The treaty defines migrant worker as a "person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national". Among other provisions, the treaty protects rights of migrant workers in areas such as movement, torture, slavery, thought, conscience, religion, privacy, property, liberty and security of person, conditions of arrest and detention, equality before national courts, no punishment for contract breaches, travel documents and work permits, access to consular and diplomatic authorities,
and employment conditions. The treaty further establishes a Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (Part VII) to receive and comment upon periodic reports of State Parties on the legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures taken to give effect to the Convention's provisions. The Migrant Workers Convention incorporates and expands upon an already established body of labor standards, and, due to the growing trans-national movement of workers, is one of the most important new human rights treaties to be adopted by the United Nations. The Migrant Workers Convention should set the standard in Saudi Arabia for the rights of foreign workers and the obligations of the Saudi Governments to protect those rights.

V. TREATMENT OF WOMEN

O, mankind! Reverence your guardian-Lord who created you from a single soul. (Quran 4: 1)

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

All human beings are God's subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis 114 of piety and good deeds.

A. Cultural and Social Background

Segregation of the sexes is an integral part of Saudi society, adversely affecting freedom of movement for women and their access to education and employment. Saudi society also imposes a variety of other social restrictions on both Saudis and resident foreigners. These restrictions keep women within strictly defined limits decreed and policed by men. Saudis claim their restrictions on women are required by Islamic religious principles - and indeed some social norms are. Islamic law and tradition, however, do not require such strict impediments to women's full participation in the life of their society as women today must face in Saudi Arabia. Many social norms in Saudi Arabia treat women differently from men. Saudi women, for example, may not marry non-Saudi men without government permission, which is rarely given. Women also may not marry a non-Muslim, while men in certain circumstances may marry Christians and Jews. Similarly, a man may divorce his wife by saying, "I divorce you," three times. A woman may divorce her husband, however, only through a complex legal proceeding and only in extraordinary circumstances. The most well-known restriction on women in Saudi Arabia is the stern regulation of the manner of their dress outside the home. Appropriate clothing typically includes an abaaya - an outer cloak which covers the woman's clothes from neck
to hands and ankles. The Saudi woman also must veil her face.Western influence and technological advances in Saudi Arabia may have resulted in greater restrictions upon women. The overthrow of the pro-Western Shah of Iran in 1979 froze a trend toward liberalization in Islamic countries. In Saudi Arabia, riots at the Grand Mosque in Mecca during the same year had a similar effect. To pacify conservative religious partisans, the government increased its restrictions on women. It required, for example, that all government-owned housing compounds have sex-segregated recreation areas, and it banned female employees in shops and offices. Women also disappeared from television programs, quieting a growing debate about women's role in society.

B. Enforcement of Social Restrictions

Most social and religious norms affecting personal life are matters of law and are enforced by the Saudi Government. The Mutawwi'un have authority to enforce the social restrictions on women. Its agents patrol the streets, sometimes carrying sticks with which to harass women who do not appear properly modest in dress or manner. There are reports of the Mutawwi'un hitting women on their upper bodies and even their faces when the women failed to cover their bodies fully with an abaaya. Both the number and the seriousness of incidents in which Saudi and foreign women were harassed for failure to observe dress codes rose sharply in the latter part of 1991.Male family members also are expected to enforce women's compliance with social restrictions when necessary. If a woman is caught in violation of a particular social or legal norm the government is more likely to exact retribution from a male family member than from the woman herself. Several individuals interviewed by the Committee said that retribution for the initial offense of any woman would be exacted from her father, husband, or brother. In some instances, the man closest to the offender would be imprisoned, in effect also leaving the woman under house arrest as she would not be able to travel without his permission and accompaniment. If unsuccessful at controlling women's behavior through the above methods, however, Saudi officials will imprison the woman herself. Once arrested, female prisoners are subjected to the same type of ill-treatment as are men, including torture.

C. Lack of Freedom of Movement

Some of the restrictions placed upon women in Saudi Arabia involve not only the physical separation of the sexes but also the physical confinement of women, severely limiting their freedom of movement. It is reported that a woman in Saudi Arabia must have the permission of the senior male of her family to leave her home. When permitted to leave the home, a woman generally must be accompanied by a male, even if that male is the family driver or her minor son.

Travel outside the country is even more rare. Individuals interviewed by the Committee report that no Saudi woman may leave Saudi Arabia without the written consent of the male head of her household.
One example of the limitation on women's freedom of movement is the Saudi law which forbids women to drive automobiles. In November 1990 fourteen women drivers, accompanied by 32 passengers, pulled out of a Safeway supermarket parking lot and drove a short distance in Riyadh to protest the customary prohibition against female drivers. Response was swift. Police stopped the convoy at traffic lights, and Mutawwi'un surrounded the cars, pounding on windows and doors while denouncing the women inside as prostitutes and sinners. The women explained they were driving because "[i]n time of war mobilization and national emergency we need to, for the safety of our families.

Police took the women to the police station for interrogation. Police also summoned and questioned male relatives, some of whom supported the demonstration. The men were forced to sign documents declaring the women would never again participate in such an action or even speak of the incident, and would never again drive under threat of punishment or imprisonment. Only after these documents were signed did the authorities permit the women to leave.

Saudi authorities distributed "police reports" for posting at government offices and public buildings and distributed them as leaflets on the public streets. The leaflets included the women's names, addresses, telephone numbers, and the directive, "Do what you believe is appropriate regarding these women. Thereafter the women endured harassment, threats, and curses, were fired or suspended from their jobs, and were forbidden to travel abroad. The King ordered virtually all who taught at one university to be dismissed. In several instances, family members suffered reprisals, and were forbidden to leave Saudi Arabia. The women's passports were not returned until October 1991.In keeping with the Saudi policy of press censorship, none of the local newspapers covered the protest. A Saudi journalist and editor, Mr. Al-Azzaz, who was the husband of one of the participants, was arrested reportedly for taking photographs of the demonstration and alerting Western news organizations to the event.

D. Inequality in Education

Until the 1960's, education in Saudi Arabia was in the hands of teachers who taught religious and social studies at private schools. Only boys attended these schools. Prompted by the late King Faisal's wife, the Dar al-Hanan and Nassif schools for girls were opened in Jeddah in 1957. State schools soon followed, despite considerable opposition from traditionalist critics. In 1960, upon the opening of the girls school in Buraydah, armed troops were required to control protesters. In 1962, Saudi women were admitted to universities for the first time. Since then Saudi Arabia has become a party to the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, which defines discrimination as including any "distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, [or] religion . . . has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education. Specifically, the UNESCO Convention forbids depriving any person or group of persons access to education of any type or at any level, or limiting any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard. The Convention permits separate educational systems or institutions for male and female students only if these systems or institutions offer equivalent access to education, provide a teaching staff and facilities of the same standard, and afford the opportunity to take the same or equivalent courses of study. The Saudi system of segregated education, however, is still administered in a manner which restricts educational opportunities for female students and does not provide equal access to resources. Sex segregation at school means that most facilities are duplicated, but not necessarily equal. Some facilities, such as libraries, are open for girls only one day per week. Saudi women interviewed by the Committee report that facilities for girls are markedly inferior to those provided for boys. Such conditions violate the UNESCO Concention. The disparity in the qualifications of its teaching staff also compromises the Saudi's segregated system of education. About 34% of Saudi university-level male teachers hold doctorates, compared to only 3% of the female teachers. Because of the scarcity of qualified instructors at higher levels, some classes for women are taught by men, but only through closed circuit television so that teacher and student never meet face to face.

Saudi women, moreover, may not freely choose their university course of study. They are limited to train and study only in those areas where, once employed, they will serve exclusively women. As a result, women enroll primarily in social sciences, medical schools, and teachers' preparation colleges. Fields such as engineering, architecture, and pharmacy remain exclusively male.

The Saudi Government, in its official development operating plan for 1980-85, committed itself to providing appropriately for- the education of women and to expand the academic fields offered. Nonetheless, that education which the Saudi Government considers "appropriate" for women remains very limited. A publication of the Saudi Government demonstrates its biased approach to women's education:

The object of woman [sic] education is to bring her up in a sound Islamic way so that she can fulfill her role in life as a successful housewife, ideal wife and good mother, and to prepare her for other activities that suit her nature such as teaching, nursing and medicine.

The best Saudi universities do not admit women. Saudi Arabia has 7 universities, 78 colleges, and 11 female colleges. Only five universities accept both male and female students. The King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, one of the "most prestigious universities in the Middle East, according to a recent Saudi publication, accepts only men, as does the Islamic University.

In the early 1970's, the need for educated Saudis to fill jobs created by the demands of development allowed some women the opportunity to study abroad. Aramco was the first entity in Saudi Arabia to send women abroad to study, which led the government to relax some of the restrictions on travel for women.

University graduates returning home with their education also brought different ideas about how Saudi women should live. The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice complained, and the government reinstated its prohibition on women traveling abroad on their own. Most women who do study abroad are allowed to do so because they are with their husband or guardian. It also is reported that the Saudi Government will not provide financial assistance for Saudi women to study abroad, as it does for Saudi men. The results of the Saudi system demonstrate its inherent inequality. Although girls equal boys in numbers at primary school levels, attendance by girls falls considerably at the intermediate level and still further at the secondary level. A 1979-80 survey found that 55% of girls were enrolled in primary schools, but that figure dropped to only 23% enrolled in secondary schools. As of 1980, the literacy rate for Saudi Arabian women was an estimated 38%, compared to 62% for men.

E. Inequality in Employment

Work is a right guaranteed by the State and Society for each person able to work. Everyone shall be free to choose the work that suits him best and which serves his interests and those of society.

In 1986, women comprised only 4% of the paid work force in Saudi Arabia. Among the reasons for this very low percentage are the sex-discriminatory education system and the strict segregation of the sexes. Traditional notions of distinct social roles for the sexes also continue to be problematic for women's full incorporation into the work place.

Saudi Arabia is, nonetheless, a party to International Labor Organization Convention No. 111, concerning discrimination with respect to employment and occupation. This Convention requires each ratifying country to pursue national policies designed to eliminate any discrimination regarding employment and occupation. The Convention defines as discrimination any exclusion or preference made on the basis of sex which has the effect of impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupations' It is significant that the Convention also defines "employment" and "occupation" to include both access to vocational training and access, to particular occupations. The sex-discriminatory Saudi education system prevents equal access to vocational training. Likewise, because women may work only in industries where they will serve exclusively women, they are excluded from most occupations.

The Convention also requires parties to enact legislation and promote educational programs which will secure the acceptance and observance of a non-discriminatory employment policy and requires that the parties repeal or modify any laws or practices which are inconsistent with a non-discriminatory policy. Saudi Arabia has made small advances in this respect, but has much to do before it will be in compliance with its obligations under the Convention.
It must be noted that the impediments to full compliance are social and legal, not religious. The Quran does not discriminate against the employment of women, but rather calls on all believers to work. The late King Faisal stated that "the most important requirements Islam calls for are: to maintain progress, to carry out justice, [and] to create equality. Accordingly, the third five year plan (1980-85) advocated "expanding the base of female employment in a fashion which will increase human. The same plan called for direction of the media towards "altering society's attitudes towards the work of women and their contribution to the development and evolution of the country based on our orthodox Islamic values.

The Saudi Government has made efforts to uphold its international legal commitments while continuing to enforce social segregation. One example is the appearance in various industries of "women's branches" to allow women more control over their personal and professional lives. For example, in 1980, the first women's banks opened. Before that time, women could not enter a bank and do business inside. Such institutions allow women some small measure of autonomy while retaining sex segregated boundaries through the use of separate facilities employing only women. Hence, these businesses benefit women both through the jobs they create, and the measure of control they offer their customers. Saudi officials describe the opening of women's banks as consistent with their desire to extend the economic prosperity of the country to women within the confines of traditional modesty. Even the few women who are able to pursue advanced degrees and professional careers, however, are not afforded equal pay and the same professional opportunities as their male counter-parts. This discrimination occurs despite Saudi Arabia's obligations as a party to ILO Convention No. 100, concerning equal remuneration to men and women for work of equal value. As a party to this Convention, Saudi Arabia must ensure the universal application of the principle of equal pay for equal work for all men and women. Parties may accomplish the goal through a variety of means including law, regulation, and collective agreements between employers and workers. Few countries in the world so severely restrict the lives of women, and all members of the United Nations are charged to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to sex. Saudi Arabia's notoriety in this regard sets it far apart from the majority of nations and creates an imperative for the Saudi Government to rectify the condition and standing of women in its society.

VI. TREATMENT OF THE SHI'AA

Let there be no compulsion in religion. (Quran, 2:256)

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. The Saudi Government states that it is one function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities. In practice, however, the Saudi Government has no tolerance for religious minorities and their rights to freedom of worship. Saudi officials routinely seize any symbols or scripture of other religions at the border. Rites of non-Islamic religions must be held privately and generally are not tolerated even under those restrictive circumstances. The government's lack of tolerance is directed against all non-Muslims and non-Wahhabi Muslims, but is particularly clear in the case of Saudi Shi'a Muslims. These people have lived in persecution for their religious beliefs for decades.

A. The Shi'a of Saudi Arabia

One source estimates as many as one and a half million Shi'a living in Saudi Arabia."' A small community of these Shi'a live in the West of Saudi Arabia in the cities of Medina and Yanbu. Because they are so few and live among the Sunni majority, thr)se Shi'a have all but given up their Shi'a religious practice. The majority of the Shi'a population, however, is concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia in cities such as Al-Hofoof, Al-Muburaz, Sayhat, Safwa, Al-Awamiyah, Tarout, and many other small villages. These Shi'a lived under the provincial rule of Abdullah ibn Jalawi and his family from 1913 until 1985. The rule of the Ibn Jalawis was stern, brutal, and characterized by their hatred of the Shi'a.The Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia is remarkably rich in agricultural and mineral wealth. It produces a large variety of crops... and is the location of the country's largest oil fields. Despite the wealth of natural resources, however, the Eastern Province is one of the most impoverished regions in Saudi Arabia.

Compared to other regions in Saudi Arabia, the government has spent much less on construction projects, roads, medicine, and education in the Eastern Region. One journalist observed that houses are unimaginably poor by modern Saudi standards. Shanties were commonplace until the early 1980's,"' and Shi'a cities and towns still lack the modern medical facilities available in cities like Riyadh and Jeddah. It was not until 1987 that the Saudi Government built al-Qateef Hospital - the first modern hospital in the Eastern Province.

B. Religious Persecution of the Shi'a

The Shi'a historically have been regarded by the Wahhabi religious leaders in Saudi Arabia as non-Muslims. In November 1927, in response to an inquiry by Ibn Saud about the Shi'a, the Ulema said the Shi'a "should not be allowed to perform their misguided religious practices, and if they violated the prohibition they should be exiled from Muslim land.

Notwithstanding the pronouncement of the Ulema, the government did not ban the Shi'a religious practices altogether and even permitted certain Shi'a practices in the Eastern Province as long as they were not directly contrary to Wahhabi sensibilities. The government allowed the Shi'a to have their own mosques, celebrate their religious holidays, and have their own courts with limited jurisdiction over family law matters. The government also permitted the Shi'a to visit religious shrines in Iran. Shi'a practices outside the Eastern Province, however, were not tolerated.

Although the Shi'a communities in the Eastern Province continue to be permitted to have their own mosques, they are not allowed to build new ones; nor are they allowed to expand or remodel existing mosques. In 1986 the Shi'a community in Dammam built a makeshift mosque for themselves. The Mutawwi'un were incensed at having this new mosque in Dammam and had it razed.

The Shi'a also are not allowed to recite their call to prayer in its entirety. The Shi'a declaration "I testify that Ali is one of God's believers" is omitted from the call. Although not officially banned by the government, this declaration is frowned upon by the Mutawwi'un. Indeed, the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Discouragement of Vice issued a stern warning to the Shi'a Imams to abide by the "legitimate" call to prayer. The warning promised the violators severe punishment.

Other reports suggest very severe consequences if Shi'a are found publicly practicing certain aspects of their religion. A Shi'a eyewitness interviewed by the Committee, for example, reported that in 1988 Saudi authorities shot and killed four men found celebrating a religious holiday. The Saudi Government also prohibits the Shi'a from building new religious community halls, known as Al-Husseinat, where the Shi'a conduct funeral ceremonies, weddings, and other
religious services. In the predominantly Shi'a city of Safwa, for example, there are only three or four al-Husseinat, for a population of approximately 100,000. In addition to its refusal to grant permission to build new halls, the government also has demolished or shut down existing halls.In 1990 the Saudi authorities also closed down Hawzat al Mubaraza, a religious school affiliated with Al-Qabli Mosque in Al-Ahsa, and arrested some of its teachers. This school had been
in operation for sixteen years.

C. The Anti-Shi'a Campaign of 1979

Over the past thirteen years, since the Iranian revolution, the limited tolerance the Saudi Government had for its Eastern Province Shi'a changed into a campaign of intimidation, economic and cultural repression, and terror. Though the Saudi Government traditionally disregarded the Shi'a and their demands for social justice, the rise of Khomeini and the establishment of a Shi'a government in Iran dramatically changed the situation.

The Iranian revolution inspired the Saudi Shi'a to demand their rights more openly and loudly, and the Saudi Government saw the revolution and its own Shi'a population as potential threats to its rule."' It was the Mecca revolt of September 1979, however, which inspired panic in the Saudi authorities - and set off the government's anti-Shi'a crusade. Shortly after the riots at Mecca, in November 1979, Saudi Shi'a led a traditional religious procession through city streets to commemorate the death of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. In Saudi Arabia these processions always have been prohibited. On this occasion, however, the Shi'a in Qatif ignored the ban and held the Ashura procession. The government's response was swift and brutal. Saudi security forces attempted to stop the processions by beating and arresting the participants. When the rest would not disperse, Saudi police opened fire on the crowd, killing several.

News of the events in Qatif spread to other cities and towns in the Eastern Province and in the following days large scale riots broke out throughout the Eastern Province. By the end of December, the government had suppressed the riots, but not before killing twenty people and injuring dozens of others."' In addition to the deaths and injuries, hundreds of people were arrested, interrogated, and detained for months.

The 1979 events were a turning point in the life of the Shi'a community. On the one hand, the government began to spend more money in Shi'a communities on major construction projects. On the other hand, the government became very intolerant of any Shi'a activism, and was extremely suspicious of any activity in the Shi'a community. The government increased its control over the Eastern Province, often conducting general sweeps through Shi'a neighborhoods, rounding up anybody on the streets, and falsely charging them with attempted overthrow of the
government.

D. Restrictions on Shi'a Freedom of Expression

During Friday prayers, there are certain topics the Saudi Government forbids the Shi'a Imams to discuss. The government also forbids Shi'a religious scholars from publishing their teachings and prohibits the importation of any Shi'a books into the country. Similarly, there is a ban on religious audio cassettes. Those caught with Shi'a books, audio cassettes, or even pictures of Shi'a leaders are imprisoned and their possessions confiscated and destroyed.
The Saudi press often contains distorted reports of Shi'a practices and beliefs, but the Shi'a cannot use the press to reply to the accusations leveled against them or clarify their religious practices. The articles frequently label the Shi'a as non-Muslim heretics. Complaints to newspapers about distortion in these stories often leave the complainant labeled an opponent of the government, and sometimes result in incarceration. One prominent Shi'a Imam, who tried to clarify the Shi'a position on certain subjects addressed in a newspaper story, was jailed for the attempt.

E . Restrictions on Travel Outside of Saudi Arabia

Many Shi'a religious shrines are located in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Many Shi'a religious schools also are in these countries. Shi'a who desire to become religious leaders, for example, must study in Iran. In 1979, however, the Saudi Government imposed a ban on traveling to Iran, preventing the Shi'a from visiting holy shrines and continuing their religious education.

Some Saudi Shi'a still travel secretly to Iran, often at great risk to themselves and their families. One witness told the Committee that the security police arrested members of his family after they discovered he was in Iran. The Saudi security kept these family members in jail for six months. Although there is no ban on traveling to Syria, Shi'a students who go to Syria routinely are arrested on their way back to Saudi Arabia. Many of these students are tortured and held imprisoned for months.

F. Employment Discrimination

The Shi'a of Saudi Arabia are discriminated against in employment. The Saudi Government in particular practices discrimination against the Shi'a by excluding them from most government employment, especially in jobs with national security implications, which are broadly defined. Consistent with this policy, employment opportunities for Shi'a in the Saudi army are extremely limited.

For many years Aramco was the largest employer of Shi'a in the Eastern Province. In fact, Shi'a comprised nearly 40% of Aramco employees. After the events of 1979, however, the government began purging Aramco of many Shi'a employees. In 1988 a fuel storage tank at the Sadaf petrochemical facility in Jubail was blown up. Four young Shi'a were accused of the crime and beheaded. After the Jubail incident, the government imposed a ban on hiring any Shi'a at Aramco. Other companies followed Aramco's action and began rejecting Shi'a for employment. The result is massive unemployment among Shi'a.

In 1990 the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief sent an inquiry to the Saudi Government concerning the discrimination against the Shi'a population and concerning cases of arbitrary detention of members of the Shi'a community. On November 14, 1990, the Saudi Government responded:

No one is forced to live and work in Saudi Arabia against his will. If he dislikes its laws and legislation he should not choose to live in it, but if he does he should strictly respect and accept its laws and legislation. If he violates them, he is then subject to the measures in existence. The information transmitted to us in the communication of the Special Rapporteur states that those involved in the crimes were punished after being convicted of their various charges. Hence, their conviction was in accordance with the law of the land.

The Saudi Government's response to the U.N. Special Rapporteur reflects its policy of total disregard for the plight of the Saudi Arabian Shi'a and lack of respect for their basic human

VII. INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Saudi Arabia has not become a party to most of the important international human rights instruments now accepted throughout the world. This failure is in marked contrast to Saudi Arabia's professed support of international human rights principles and its frequent criticism of the human rights violations of other nations.

Saudi Arabia has claimed that fundamental principles of Islam prohibit its acceptance of many international human rights instruments. The writings of many Islamic scholars, however, and recent official writings of the Saudi Government, conclude there is no fundamental contradiction between the teachings of Islam and respect for human rights. The practice of other states with membership in the Organization of the Islamic Conference also rebuts the Saudi Government's assertion. Those limited instances where Islamic concepts of human rights differ from internationally accepted interpretations of particular provisions do not prevent Saudi Arabia's adoption of the instruments; recognized principles of international law allow for nations to interpose reservations to treaties upon their ratification. The failure of Saudi Arabia to join the rest of the world in adopting these instruments places it in a distinct minority of nations, including a minority of Islamic nations.

When the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran argued that Islamic principles justified its continued violation of the human rights of its citizens, the United Nations Special Representative on Iran, appointed by the Commission on Human Rights, responded that: States of all political, economic, social, cultural and religious persuasions participated in the drafting of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants thus contain norms which, distilled from the collective experience and the common heritage of the world's peoples, represent universal standards of conduct for all peoples and all nations.... [N]o State can claim to be allowed to disrespect basic, entrenched rights such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to a fair trial which are provided for under the Universal Declaration and the International Covenants on Human Rights, on the ground that departure from these standards might be permitted under national or religious law.

Saudi Arabia plays a leadership role in both the Arab world and the United Nations. Indeed, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United Nations, Samir S. Shihabi, recently received the great honor of being elected President of the United Nations General Assembly. Saudi Arabia is, moreover, the caretaker of the Islamic world's two most holy shrines. Because of Saudi Arabia's important role in world affairs, it bears an equally important obligation to set the standard of accepting formally and abiding by the international human rights instruments it publicly has supported in many international fora.

A. Status of International Human Rights Instruments in Saudi Arabia

As a member of the United Nations, Saudi Arabia is bound by the obligations of the United Nations Charter, including articles 55 and 56 which pledge every nation's promotion of a "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights authoritatively defines those "human rights and fundamental freedoms. Although Saudi Arabia abstained in the General Assembly vote approving the Universal Declaration in 1948, that abstention has no effect upon and does not abrogate Saudi Arabia's obligations under the United Nations Charter. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia's frequent votes in the General Assembly since 1948 endorsing numerous human rights treaties indicate Saudi Arabia's recognition of the binding human rights obligations those instruments define.

(Dec. 17, 1991)). In 1991, for example, the General Assembly reaffirmed that "all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible and interrelated and that the promotion and protection of one category of rights should never exempt or excuse States from the promotion and protection of the other' and urged "all States that have not yet done so to become parties' to both Covenants and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Saudi Arabia also joined a unanimous resolution of the General Assembly in 1984 adopting the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (G.A. Res. 39/46 (Dec. 10, 1984)), and has joined unanimous resolutions since that date supporting the Convention and urging States to ratify it (G.A. Res. 40/128 (Dec. 13, 1985), 41/134 (Dec. 4, 1986), 42/123 (Dec. 7, 1987), 43/132 (Dec. 8, 1988), and 44/144 (Dec. 15, 1989)). Saudi Arabia joined a unanimous General Assembly resolution in 1989 adopting the Convention on the Rights of the Child (G.A. Res. 44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989)), and has supported unanimous resolutions since that date urging ratification of the Convention (G.A. Res. 45/104 (Dec. 14, 1990) and 46/112 (Dec. 17, 1991)). The Saudi delegation also joined in 1991 the unanimous General Assembly adoption of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, (G.A. Res. 45/158 (Dec. 18, 1990)), and the resolution the following year urging all States to ratify the Convention (G.A. Res. 46/114 (Dec. 17, 1991)). Saudi Arabia also has consistently joined consensus resolutions supporting ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (G.A. Res. 40/26 (Nov. 19, 1985), 41/104 (Dec. 4, 1986), 43/95 (Dec. 8, 1988), and 45/89 (Dec. 14, 1990)), as well as unanimous resolutions urging ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (G.A. Res. 42/60 (Nov.30, 1987), 43/100 (Dec. 8, 1988), 44/73 (Dec. 8, 1989), and 45/124 (Dec. 14, 1990)).

Notwithstanding its support of many human rights agreements in General Assembly votes, Saudi Arabia has a lamentable record of formal adoption of those agreements. The only major international human rights agreements Saudi Arabia has acceded to are the United Nations Conventions concerning Genocide and Slavery, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the first 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Convention and a few of the conventions of the International Labor Organization. Saudi Arabia has adopted no other major international agreements relating to human rights.

As of January 1991, Saudi Arabia had ratified only 13 of the 171 ILO Conventions adopted by other nations since 1919. Those ILO conventions are: Convention (No. 1) on the Hours of Work (1919); Convention (No. 14) on Weekly Rest, Industry (1921); Convention (No. 29) on Forced Labour (1930); Convention (No. 30) on Hours of Work, Commerce and Office (1930); Convention (No. 45) on Underground Work (Women) (1935); Convention (No. 81) on Labor Inspection (1947); Convention (No. 89) on Night Work, Women (1948); Convention (No. 90) on Night Work of Young Persons (1948); Convention (No. 100) on Equal Remuneration (1951); Convention (No. 105) on the Abolition of Forced Labor (1951); Convention (No.106) on Weekly Rest, Commerce and Offices (1957); Convention (No. III) on Discrimination, Employment and Occupation (1958); and Convention (No.123) on Minimum Age, Underground Work (1965).

With respect to Convention No. 123, however, it was later revised and never has been re-ratified by Saudi Arabia. Chart of Ratifications of International Labour Conventions, January 1, 1991.

A lesser known reporting and complaint process is available through the procedures of the International Labor Organization, but Saudi Arabia's accountability to this organization has been sparse to date, despite the fact that the government bans labor or trade unions in clear violation of the ILO Constitution's "recognition of the principle of freedom of association" (Preamble, Constitution of the International Labor Organization). Complaints to the ILO can be filed either through other governments or by labor associations. Complaints known as "representations" may be filed by labor organizations against countries that have failed to observe ILO conventions they have ratified (ILO Constitution art. 24), and complaints may be filed by countries against other countries that have failed to observe.

Saudi Arabia has not subscribed to any of the principal covenants or conventions which require formal reporting or accountability for human rights practices. Saudi Arabia, for example, has not ratified either the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right S310 or the international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These Covenants are two of the most fundamental human rights instruments in the world. More than 100 nations now subscribe to one or both of these Covenants, including many Arab and other Islamic nations. Many Arab and Islamic nations, but not Saudi Arabia, also have supported the conventions for freedom of association and collective bargaining and the conventions against racial discrimination, torture, prostitution, and discrimination against women.

B. Saudi Arabia's Public Advocacy of Human Rights

Despite Saudi Arabia's poor record of formal international commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, it often has sought to enhance its international image by publicly aligning itself with recognized human rights principles and standards. Saudi Arabia's record, however, shows these public proclamations of support for the promotion and protection of human rights to be disingenuous.

Upon his election as President of the forty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 1991, Saudi Ambassador Samir S. Shihabi noted "that the application of the Charter and the respect for its rules, through the United Nations and its organs, are the best guarantee for the future of the world. King Fahd also pledged Saudi Arabia's commitment to the United Nations Charter and support for its provisions. Upon his ascension to the throne in 1982, he pledged that his country would be active "within the framework of the United Nations, its agencies, and committees. We are committed to its Charter. We reinforce its endeavors. Saudi Arabia also has long participated in sessions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. 35' The Commission on Human Rights is the primary agency of the United Nations charged with developing, debating, and recommending new norms and guidelines for the protection of human rights. Saudi Arabia's participation in these sessions included co-sponsorship of many resolutions. Saudi Arabia regularly has attended proceedings of the United Nations Committee on Crime Prevention and Control (which meets every two years) and the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (which meet every five years), and various preparatory meetings of both organizations, where human rights standards and practices in the criminal justice field are discussed and adopted. Saudi Arabia also has hosted since 1984 the annual Riyadh Conference on Criminal Justice, coordinating United Nations and regional efforts to improve criminal justice systems, including the protection of the human rights of individuals in such systems. In its participation at the United Nations Crime Committee and Crime Congresses, Saudi Arabia joined unanimous resolutions supporting many important human rights declarations and principles in the criminal justice field, including standards for the minimum treatment of prisoners, independence of the judiciary, codes of conduct and principles on the use of force by law enforcement officials, principles on the role of lawyers, guidelines for the prevention of juvenile delinquency, standard minimum rules for non-custodial measures, protections against torture safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power, recommendations on the treatment of foreign prisoners, guidelines for the roles of prosecutors, and principles on the prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary, and summary executions. Saudi Arabia, however, has failed to provide reports of its own crime statistics and criminal investigation programs for many of the Crime Committee and Crime Congress studies of such phenomena.

C. Saudi Arabia's Critique of the Human Rights Practices of Other Countries

Saudi Arabia often has criticized the human rights practices of other countries. At the 1991 session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, for example, the representative from Saudi Arabia condemned human rights atrocities committed by Iraq in Kuwait and re-affirmed Saudi Arabia's support for human rights protection Saudi Arabia has been a frequent co-sponsor of resolutions in the Commission on Human Rights condemning Israel, Iraq, and other governments for their human rights violations, and regularly has voted with the majority of member states in the United Nations General Assembly in condemning human rights violations by Israel and South Africa.

At the International Conference on Human Rights held in Teheran in 1968, Saudi Arabian representatives criticized human rights abuses in South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, South West Africa, the Portuguese colonies, and the occupied territories of Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and the United Arab Republic.

At the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the 18th Islamic Conference, noted with concern the situations of Muslim minorities in countries controlled by non-Muslims. At the Fifth Islamic Summit Conference held in Kuwait in January 1987, King Fahd expressed concern for human rights violations in the Iran-Iraq war, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

D. Human Rights and Islamic Law

Islam is considered by many to be the first major religion to recognize and promote the basic dignity and respect for humankind we now refer to as human rights. Islam not only proclaims that these rights may be exercised by all, but that all humankind has an obligation to exercise these rights and must not remain silent when the rights of others are being abridged.

The Government of Saudi Arabia has published and distributed material from its diplomatic missions in which it claims that Islam guarantees human rights in many ways: Freedom of conscience is laid down by the Qur'an itself. There is no compulsion in religion. (2:256).

The life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are considered sacred whether a person is Muslim or not. Racism is incomprehensible to Muslims, for the Qur'an speaks of human equality in the following terms:

"O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and fei-nale, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware." (49:13)...

Likewise, at the 1974 Conference of Paris, where Saudi canonists and eminent European jurists met to discuss the "Muslim Doctrine and Human Rights in Islam," the Saudi representatives presented a paper emphasizing that basic human rights are immutable and fundamental to Islam and the Saudi Arabian legal system. Saudi representatives also have made key presentations before United Nations bodies such as the Working Paper presented by H.E. Dr. Maarouf Al Dawalibi, Counsellor, Royal Court of Riyadh, in a 1984 United Nations Seminar on Religious Freedom. In this Working Paper Dr. Al Dawalibi noted that:as shown by its historical record, its categoric scriptural prohibition of coercion in religion and its prohibition of the persecution of any person on grounds of religion or belief, [Islam] has
been tolerant of other religions with whose followers it has coexisted and co-operated without discrimination. In fact, Muslims are duty-bound to protect other religions . . . '

Several Islamic and Arab organizations also have endorsed human rights principles, affirming that respect for basic human rights is compatible with the teachings of Islam. The most recent and significant of these endorsements came from the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, held in Cairo in August 1990, adopting the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

The Cairo Declaration is the product of a careful study by the Islamic Conference's Committee of Legal Experts. A meeting of the Committee of Experts was held in Tehran on December 2628, 1989, during which time a draft Declaration was prepared. The final Declaration received unanimous approval by the Foreign Ministers of the 19th Islamic Conference at its August 1990 session, which included representatives from all major Islamic countries in the world, including Saudi Arabia. Among human rights affirmed in the Cairo Declaration are the rights to equality, life, property, educational opportunities, asylum, travel, work, fair wages and fair treatment, privacy, equal treatment before the law, fair trials and the presumption of innocence, freedom of expression, participation in the affairs of one's country, and against arbitrary arrest and torture. The Declaration states that "fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and . . . no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments . .
Many Islamic scholars and writers also have affirmed the basic compatibility between Islamic principles and human rights. Some, however, have argued the Shari'a is inconsistent with international concepts of human rights in three important areas: women's rights, the right to religious freedom, and Islamic punishments. Notwithstanding these differences, it is important to note that all other basic human rights are fully consistent with and expressly endorsed by the Shari'a.

Moreover, many Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, have accepted international human rights instruments in the past which would appear to conflict with the Shari'a. Slavery, for example, is permitted by the Quran ; yet Saudi Arabia has joined the overwhelming majority of nations, both Islamic and non-Islamic, to ratify the Slavery Convention of 1926 and the Supplementary Convention against slavery-like practices of 1956.

Likewise, as evidenced from the consensus of most nations of the world, the other human rights standards enumerated in the Universal Declaration and other international instruments promote values of collective morality which merit close study by Saudi Arabia's Islamic leaders to determine how they also may be interpreted and applied consistent with the basic teachings of Islamic law.

It should be noted, for example, that the Hanbali school the leading school of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia - is distinctive among the Sunni schools for its strong belief in the sanctity of private contracts. It is reported, for example, that a private contract entered into between a bride's family and her prospective husband, can, under the Hanbali school, legally bind the husband to marry only one wife, even though the Quran would otherwise have permitted the husband to marry up to four wives. It is not inconsistent with this legal theory for other types of public or private contracts, such as international human rights treaties, to restrict other provisions of the Shari'a which are inconsistent with human rights principles - a position advocated by some Islamic authors.