Dr. Bandar al-‘Iban
Chairman
Human Rights Commission
Riyadh – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Your Excellency,
Human Rights Watch writes this public letter to urge the Human Rights Commission to investigate the possible arbitrary termination of employment, detention, and deportation of Z.S. to her native Jordan on June 6, 2011. We call upon the commission to investigate the facts of this case and to assess whether human rights violations have taken place, and, if so, to assist Z.S. in seeking remedies for any violations suffered, including by providing Z.S. legal assistance free of charge to pursue legal claims for remedies against her former employers as well as officials involved in the arbitrary acts against her, in accordance with the commission’s practice in other civil and criminal cases, and to put into practice the public defender program approved by the Shura Council on January 11, 2010.
The facts of this case suggest that members of the royal family asked public officials—the police and prosecution service—to arrest and deport Z.S. on the basis of a private employment dispute, as opposed to any criminal violation of the law. The importance of this case goes far beyond the individual details. Defending Z.S.’s rights would not only set a sign for the rights of all migrant workers in the kingdom, but also underline that justice applies to all, including members of the royal family. Our information in this case is based on interviews with Z.S., Prince Sa’d al-Faisal, and a friend, Mamduh al-Sha’lan, as well as documentation Z.S. shared with us.
Details of possible arbitrary termination, arrest, detention, and deportation
In December 2010, Z.S. began work as the “palace director,” according to her work contract, in the home of members of the royal family, Princess Misha’il, her employer, and Prince Sa’d al-Faisal, Princess Misha’il’s husband. A family envoy confiscated her passport as soon as she arrived at the airport, she told Human Rights Watch.
She was in charge of the domestic staff, ranging between and 10 and 15 employees, comprising educators, cleaners, cooks, and tailors, all of whom were foreigners. In addition, she accompanied the family’s daughter, Princess J., to university and around Riyadh, where the home was. Z.S. said she often worked until 2 a.m. and that Princess Misha’il frequently threatened the domestic staff, including with words such as “I will kill you.” Z.S. said she received her monthly salary of SAR 4,000 on time and that her employers kept her residency permit in their custody. She said she was not allowed to leave the house alone.
In late March 2011, Z.S. informed Princess Misha’il that she wished to quit her job and return home, because she said she found the lifestyle of household members incompatible with her moral values. According to Z.S., the princess refused, saying “I, not you, decide when you leave” this job, and told all of the domestic staff, “if one of you deceives me, I will kill you.” Z.S. asked another member of the royal family and friend of the family, Prince Salman bin Bandar, to intervene on her behalf.
In response, she said, Princess Misha’il on April 1 called the police from Ma’bir police station. When they arrived at the house, Princess Misha’il asked the police to punish her, Z.S. said, for allegedly revealing family secrets. The police questioned Z.S. at the home about whether she had revealed family secrets to outsiders that could bring the family in disrepute, Z.S. said. Prince Sa’d al-Faisal was present and also participated in the questioning, he told Human Rights Watch, adding that he had “telephone records” of calls Z.S. made. Z.S. denied having revealed any secrets to outsiders. The police then took Z.S. to the police station, where what Z.S. described as “clerics” from the prosecutor’s office questioned her, also about revealing family secrets. Z.S. said that the clerics told her that the family was a known trouble maker and “not to worry,” because there was no evidence against her. There was no formal charge laid against her, Z.S. said.
Prince Sa’d al-Faisal spoke to Human Rights Watch and confirmed elements of this account, saying that the police came and together with him questioned Z.S. solely about whether she had revealed family secrets. The family had no other claims against Z.S., Prince Sa’d al-Faisal said, adding, however, that he had “protocols in which she confessed” to revealing family secrets.
Our review of Z.S.’s work contract indicates that it does not stipulate any confidentiality provisions or obligations to preserve “family secrets”. The most relevant part of the contract states that she has agreed to work with her employer “according to conditions and requirements of the job.” The contract was for three years, so Z.S. has claims for wrongful termination.
The police transferred Z.S. to the women’s section of Malaz prison, where she described bad conditions, including poor food, overcrowded rooms, and many Filipina and Indonesian women with babies from Saudi fathers who were unable to leave.
After one month in prison without charge, the authorities on May 1 transferred her to the deportation center. Z.S. had access to a mobile phone and called a friend, Mamduh Sha’lan, who tried to appoint his nephew, Abd al-Ilah Sha’lan, as a lawyer on her behalf. Z.S. and Abd al-Ilah Sha’lan described how the deportation center’s director and deputy director, Amal Abu ‘Arraj and Maha al-Bunaiyan, prevented the lawyer from receiving her power of attorney. According to Z.S., al-Bunaiyan told her “Do not appoint a lawyer; you will stay here longer,” to which she replied by insisting on appointing a lawyer.
Lawyer Sha’lan nevertheless addressed the governorate of Riyadh on Z.S.’s behalf, asking them to stop the deportation, according to a letter from the lawyer that Human Rights Watch obtained. The governorate referred the matter to the Riyadh police, which did not respond. Mamduh Sha’lan said he also addressed the Riyadh police on behalf of Z.S. to have her released, but that the police denied she was detained. Mamduh Sha’lan suggested that Z.S.’s employers were intent on having her deported, instead of simply firing Z.S. and allowing her to return to Jordan normally, because deportation generally prevents a return to Saudi Arabia.
Z.S. said that after prison guards discovered that she had access to a mobile phone, they dragged her out of her room by her hair, beat and insulted her, and for 10 days put her in a small cell together with a Nepali woman who Z.S. said “had lost her mind.” On June 6, the authorities took her out of the deportation center and deported her by airplane to Jordan.
Z.S. had a valid residency permit at the time of her arrest by the police on April 1, and even if her work contract ended that day leading to the cancellation of her residency permit, she should have been able to leave the country by normal travel, not by deportation, which bars her from reentry.
Possible human rights violations
Throughout her arrest and detention, Z.S. said that the authorities did not charge her with a crime or hold any proceedings to her knowledge regarding the reasons for her deportation. Mamduh Sha’lan, who inquired about her case with the Riyadh police and was in touch with her until her mobile phone was taken away, told Human Rights Watch that as far as he knew, she had not confessed to any crime, had not been charged, and had never been presented to a judge. The authorities deported Z.S. without informing her of the reasons and allowing her to object to her deportation to a competent authority. It thus appears that the authorities arrested, detained, and deported Z.S. in violation of her due process and fair trial rights to have any criminal charges against her assessed in a fair hearing by an independent court.
Furthermore, while it remains unclear whether the authorities ever charged Z.S. with a crime, the apparent reason for her arrest – an accusation of “revealing family secrets” – is neither a distinct, cognizable offense under Saudi law nor one that would meet with the requirements of international law if it were one. Saudi Arabia has no written penal code to define whether “revealing family secrets” could be considered a crime. Shaikh Hani al-Jubair, a judge at the General Court in Mecca, in 2010 wrote a Shari’a treatise about obligations to reveal or keep secrets, in which he stated that in general revealing secrets is forbidden, in particular malicious gossiping, but that there are exceptions, such as testifying about secrets under court orders, or informing the authorities about communicative diseases. General exceptions also include situations in which revealing a secret leads to a public benefit, and where doing so leads to a private benefit to the owner of the secret greater than the damage incurred by the revelation.
International human rights law allows for very narrow limitations on the right to freedom of expression, including for the protection of the reputation of others. Criminalizing speech is not an appropriate means to limit such expression, however, because of the chilling effect it has on free expression. Civil (in Saudi Arabia: private rights) claims for remedies for libelous speech are the more appropriate means of protecting the right to one’s privacy and reputation.
Furthermore, she does not appeared to have violated any provisions of her employment contract. Z.S.’s work contract does not stipulate any confidentiality provisions or obligations to preserve “family secrets”. The most relevant part of the contract states that she has agreed to work with her employer “according to conditions and requirements of the job.” The contract was for three years.
We will gladly facilitate your contact with all parties concerned in your investigation and look forward to hearing from you before September 15.
I wish you a blessed Ramadan,
Sincerely,
Christoph Wilcke
Senior Researcher
Middle East and North Africa Division
