Saudi officials have responded to an allegation letter from United Nations experts regarding the travel bans imposed on women human rights defenders Loujain al-Hathloul and Maryam al-Otaibi by categorically rejecting all of the concerns raised, while making contradictory and misleading assertions about the women’s cases and human rights in the kingdom generally.
On 27 March 2024, UN experts sent an allegation letter to the Saudi authorities, asking to know the legal grounds for the ongoing travel restrictions on al-Hathloul and al-Otaibi, and how these meet international human rights standards, including the requirements of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. The government response, dated 21 May 2024 and recently made available in English, states that the women are not subject to any restrictions “other than those set out in the final court judgment handed down to Loujain al-Hathloul, prohibiting her from travelling abroad for the period of time stipulated in the judgment, and in the administrative decision issued by the competent authority prohibiting Maryam al-Otaibi from travelling abroad”.
However, al-Hathloul’s judicially imposed travel ban of two years and 10 months, from the date of her release from prison, was due to expire on 12 November 2023. Since then she has continued to be unofficially barred from travelling, without being notified of any formal ban, either judicial or administrative, that she might be able to challenge, or of any expiry date.
Similarly, although the Saudi response to the UN appeal cites the legal position that an administrative decision to ban someone from travelling “must be based solely on security considerations and must apply for a finite period of time”, al-Otaibi also remains trapped inside Saudi Arabia under an unofficial travel ban without an expiry date, which she only found out about when attempting to leave the country.
Neither of their travel bans is documented on the online government platforms Najez, operated by the Ministry of Justice, or Absher, operated by the Ministry of Interior, making it almost impossible to challenge them; in fact the two platforms show clean records for both women. As such, al-Hathloul and al-Otaibi find themselves in limbo, and while the government reply claims that individuals are “entitled to challenge” travel bans, effective means to do so are severely limited. Both women have repeatedly yet fruitlessly contacted various official bodies seeking information and attempting to submit complaints. Both reached out to the heavily compromised national human rights institution, the Saudi Human Rights Commission (SHRC), and it is notable that the official response to the UN appeal flatly denies that they were not helped, and indeed offers a detailed defence of the SHRC as “an effective mechanism for ensuring the implementation of prevailing human rights laws and regulations”.
Many prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia who have been conditionally released in recent years continue to face harsh restrictions, including lengthy travel bans. These are often applied in advance as part of their judicial sentence, usually for the same additional length of time as the prison term itself. The authorities also impose arbitrary “unofficial” travel bans without any notification of a legal justification, judicial ruling or official decision behind them.
Travel bans have serious consequences for the victims’ lives, preventing them from pursuing personal and professional goals abroad, accessing specialist healthcare, or visiting family members outside the country. This in turn can have a profound impact on the mental and emotional well-being of both the individuals directly affected and their families. The Saudi authorities have also been making repeated and increasing use of arbitrary travel bans on family members of activists, including al-Hathloul’s, as a form of collective punishment.
Meanwhile, the government response to the UN makes lengthy and detailed assertions that the Saudi state and its laws fully comply with all their international obligations, a position that has been consistently challenged at the UN Human Rights Council and elsewhere. For example, the document asserts that “the laws of Saudi Arabia guarantee accused persons the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent and independent court”, whereas in practice judicial proceedings in the kingdom fall far short of international standards, and trials are routinely held in secret with international observers denied access, as in the case of al-Hathloul.
The official response also baldly states that “all Saudi laws have been drafted very precisely and clearly. They contain no ambiguous or vague language”, although this too has repeatedly been contradicted by UN and other observers and NGOs, who point to loose wording in the draconian Counter-Terrorism and Anti-Cybercrime Laws being used to crack down on peaceful dissent.
The official response also baldly states that “all Saudi laws have been drafted very precisely and clearly. They contain no ambiguous or vague language”, although this too has repeatedly been contradicted by UN and other observers and NGOs, who point to loose wording in the draconian Counter-Terrorism and Anti-Cybercrime Laws being used to crack down on peaceful dissent.
ALQST’s Head of Monitoring and Advocacy Lina AlHathloul comments: “The Saudi authorities’ latest stonewalling about the travel bans imposed on my sister Loujain and Maryam al-Otaibi is riddled with contradictions and duplicity. Their travel bans remain in effect, and seem to be acknowledged as such by the authorities, yet do not appear officially on government platforms. They allegedly apply for finite periods, yet no expiry dates have been provided. Moreover, any attempt to remedy or even clarify the situation falls on deaf ears.”
ALQST once again urges the Saudi authorities to stop this practice of imposing travel bans that are illegal in both international and domestic law. It calls on them to immediately lift the arbitrary travel bans on Loujain al-Hathloul and Maryam al-Otaibi and on members of their families and other activists’ family members, as well as all the travel bans imposed by the courts on both current and former prisoners of conscience.
