The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Morocco to take allrhe necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 67/2023 concerning Khatri Dadda, asking the Moroccan Government to immediately and unconditionally release him and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Khatri Dadda (Morocco) : Opinion No. 67/2023.
SAHRAWI JOURNALIST AND PHOTOGRAPHER ARRESTED AT A POLICE STATION
Khatri Dadda is a Sahrawi journalist and photographer working for the activist media Salwan Media and living in Smara in Western Sahara. He documents human rights violations and the use of force by the police against Sahrawi demonstrators.
On 10 October 2019, Mr. Dadda went to the Smara police station in order to obtain a Moroccan identity card. The police refused him the card and informed him that an arrest warrant had been issued against him, although the reasons for this warrant were not communicated to him.
On 24 December 2019, Mr. Dadda went again to the police station accompanied by an activist from the Moroccan Human Rights Association. As soon as he arrived, he was arrested by five police officers and taken to the Smara judicial police headquarters, where he was interrogated for forty-eight hours without the presence of a lawyer.
The day after his arrest, Mr. Dadda's family, accompanied by several Sahrawi activists, went to the Smara police station. There, the police informed them that Mr. Dadda had been arrested for allegedly attacking the police and setting fire to one of their vehicles.
On 26 December 2019, Mr. Dadda was brought before the Laâyoune examining magistrate, who eventually ordered Mr. Dadda's detention in Laâyoune prison. On 4 March 2020, Mr. Dadda was finally sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for arson on a vehicle, insulting public officials in the performance of their duties, and committing premeditated violence against them. Although the defence appealed against this decision, the decision was upheld on appeal. In June 2020 and August 2022, Mr. Dadda was allegedly transferred to an unknown location, which eventually turned out to be Aït Melloul prison and then Safi prison.
The Government of Morocco was given the opportunity to contest these allegations, which it did on 27 October 2023.
REJECTION OF THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE ARBITRARY NATURE OF HIS ARREST
The source claimed that Mr. Dadda was arrested without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. However, the Moroccan Government stated that when Mr. Dadda first went to the police station on 10 October 2019, he was informed that an arrest warrant had been issued for him. Thus, as Mr. Dadda had been informed of the reasons for his arrest beforehand, as well as during his appearance before the judge, the Working Group did not find any violation of international law in this regard.
Moreover, the source stated that, as the King's Prosecutor was the authority responsible for issuing arrest warrants, he should have been aware of the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Dadda - which was not the case. However, the Moroccan Government explained that the reasons for Mr. Dadda's arrest fell within the competence of the Public Prosecutor, who indeed took charge of the case since he ordered Mr. Dadda's detention. As the source did not respond to the Government's additional observations, the Working Group considered that there had been no violation of international law in this respect either.
Lastly, the source claimed that Mr. Dadda had been subjected to treatment that could be considered psychological torture in order to force him to sign the police report. The source also noted that, being illiterate, Mr. Dadda had not been able to understand the content of the report he had signed. In response to this allegation, the Government explained that neither Mr. Dadda nor his lawyer had made any such accusations or requested a medical examination during the various stages of the case. In view of all the above and the fact that the source's arguments were not detailed enough, the Working Group did not find any violation of international law concerning these allegations.
Thus, the Working Group concluded that Mr Dadda's arrest did not lack a legal basis, and was therefore not arbitrary under category I.
REJECTION OF THE ALLEGATION THAT HIS ARREST WAS DUE TO THE EXERCISE OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
The source claimed that Mr. Dadda's activities, namely his work as a Saharawi photographer and human rights defender, as well as his activism in favour of the Sahrawi people's right to self-determination, were at the origin of his arrest. However, in its response, the Government explained that Mr. Dadda's arrest was due to criminal activities, namely his alleged involvement in setting fire to a car belonging to the Moroccan police and throwing stones at public officials. Once again, the Working Group considered that the source had not provided the information necessary to characterise a violation of Mr. Dadda's rights with respect to freedom of expression and association under the Covenant. In addition, the Working Group considered that the acts of violence of which Mr. Dadda had been accused were sufficiently serious to justify a restriction of his fundamental freedoms for the maintenance of security and public order.
In light of the above, the Working Group therefore concluded that Mr. Dadda's arrest and detention was not arbitrary under category II.
VIOLATIONS OF HIS RIGHTS TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION, TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND TO A FAIR TRIAL
The source claimed that Mr. Dadda had been tortured in order to make him confess guilt and that the evidence collected against him had been obtained without the presence of a lawyer. The Government denied this, stating that Mr. Dadda did not have a lawyer because he had chosen to defend himself.
In addition, the source claimed that Mr. Dadda had not been able to obtain the right to examine the evidence used against him during his trial. The Government, on the other hand, stated that no request had been made by Mr. Dadda to be able to examine this evidence.
Although the Working Group considered that it did not have enough evidence to prove that Mr. Dadda had been tortured, it nevertheless felt that the Moroccan authorities should have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that Mr. Dadda had access to a lawyer. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, namely the subject of his accusation but also his age and his alleged lack of literacy, the Working Group considered that the Government should have given Mr. Dadda access to legal representation and that, having failed to do so, it had violated Mr. Dadda's right to a fair trial, within the meaning of article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In addition, the Working Group also noted the source's assertion that the defence did not have access to the video allegedly showing Mr. Dadda's criminal acts. Although the Government denied this accusation, explaining that the video had not been used against Mr. Dadda, the Working Group noted that photos from the video had in fact been used during the trial. The Working Group therefore considered that Mr. Dadda's right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, guaranteed by article 14 of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, had been violated.
In addition, the source asserted that Mr. Dadda had been prevented from confronting the prosecution witnesses. The Government did not dispute this point but simply explained that this choice was a matter for the independence of the court that had heard the case. The Working Group considered the Government's response insufficient, as the independence of the court could not justify failure to respect the principle of equality of arms, protected by article 14 of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the possibility of confronting the prosecution witnesses is essential for this principle to be respected, the Working Group considered that the afore-mentioned articles had been violated.
In view of all the above, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Dadda's right to a fair trial had not been respected, and that his deprivation of liberty was therefore arbitrary under category III.
REJECTION OF THE ALLEGATION OF DISCRIMINATORY DETENTION
Finally, the source stated that Mr. Dadda's deprivation of liberty was due to discriminatory reasons, in particular concerning his Saharan identity and his political opinions. However, as the arguments put forward by the Government were based on Mr. Dadda's alleged criminal activities, the Working Group argued that its role was not to carry out a de novo assessment of the facts.
The Working Group was therefore unable to conclude that Mr. Dadda had been detained arbitrarily on discriminatory grounds under category V.
CONCLUSION OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the above, the United Nations Working Group against Arbitrary Detention considered that Khatri Dadda's detention was arbitrary and fell under category III because it was in contravention of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Working Group recommended that the Government of Morocco take the necessary measures to remedy Khatri Dadda's situation without delay and bring it into line with the relevant international standards. The Working Group also asked the Moroccan Government to ensure that a full and independent investigation is carried out into the circumstances surrounding Khatri Dadda's arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.
Accordingly, the Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Khatri Dadda immediately and unconditionally and to grant him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparation, in accordance with international law.
Commentaires