Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) found that the imprisonment of Salma al-Shehab and Nourah al-Qahtani by Saudi authorities was arbitrary and in violation of international human rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Both women were prosecuted under Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Terrorism Law (Royal Decree No. M/21) and Anti-Cybercrime Law (Royal Decree No. M/17) for their peaceful online activism. Al-Shehab was sentenced to 34 years in prison and al-Qahtani to 45 years. The Working Group found that the detentions lacked any legal basis, directly resulted from the exercise of protected speech, were marked by serious violations of fair trial guarantees, and were motivated in part by discrimination based on gender, political opinion, and, in al-Shehab’s case, her Shia religious identity. The UNWGAD called for their immediate release, reparations, and for Saudi Arabia to revise its national laws to comply with international human rights standards. The case was referred to UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, counterterrorism, and torture, highlighting global concerns about the repression of digital freedoms in Saudi Arabia.

---

Facts

This case concerns the detention and prosecution of Salma bint Sami bin Abdulmohsen al-Shehab, a Saudi citizen and PhD student at the University of Leeds, and Nourah bin Saeed al-Qahtani, a Saudi citizen and online commentator. Both women were arrested and sentenced under Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Terrorism Law (Royal Decree No. M/21) and Anti-Cybercrime Law (Royal Decree No. M/17) for their peaceful online activities related to human rights and political expression.

Salma al-Shehab was arrested on 15 January 2021 while visiting Saudi Arabia on holiday from the United Kingdom. She had an active presence on Twitter, where she reposted content in support of women’s rights, political prisoners, and Palestinian solidarity—and often engaged with posts calling for the release of prominent activists, such as Loujain al-Hathloul. Her Twitter bio included statements such as “Life is belief and struggle” and hashtags including #Quds_is_Arabic, #Stop_Killing_Women, and #Freedom_for_prisoners_of_opinion.

She was summoned to the Presidency of State Security facility in Dammam for questioning regarding her retweets and her viewing of videos by Saudi dissidents. During interrogation, no arrest warrant was shown, and no charges were provided. She was not allowed to leave after the session and was immediately placed in detention.

Salma was held incommunicado for 13 days, with no access to her family, a lawyer, or the outside world. She remained in solitary confinement for a total of 285 days, during which she was frequently interrogated without the presence of legal counsel. According to statements submitted to the Specialized Criminal Court, she was interrogated late at night, often after taking prescribed antidepressants and sleeping medication, and was subjected to psychological pressure. Officers allegedly told her that “no one cares about you” and attempted to coerce her into expressing support for the Muslim Brotherhood—a banned group in Saudi Arabia. She was verbally harassed, often through references to her Shia Muslim background, and transferred between Dammam and Riyadh without notice to her family.

Throughout this period, Salma was not granted access to legal counsel. A government-appointed lawyer was later assigned, but did not maintain communication with her. Her family hired a private lawyer, but all meetings between them were monitored by security officers, compromising the confidentiality of legal consultation.

In October 2021, nearly 10 months after her arrest, Salma was formally charged under multiple provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Anti-Cybercrime Law. Her trial took place before the Specialized Criminal Court, which hears terrorism-related cases. Proceedings were held in closed court, and the evidence presented against her consisted solely of her Twitter activity and statements made during interrogation. In March 2022, al-Shehab was sentenced to six years in prison, and her Twitter account was closed permanently.

Upon appeal by the public prosecutor, her sentence was increased on August 19, 2022, to 34 years in prison, followed by a 34-year travel ban. The appellate court referred to al-Shehab’s support for individuals “seeking to disrupt public order” and imposed a discretionary five-year sentence for charges with no fixed penalties. Her lawyer was barred from attending the final sentencing hearing.

Nourah al-Qahtani was arrested on 4 July 2021, several months after al-Shehab’s detention. Al-Qahtani used two anonymous Twitter accounts to criticize Saudi government policies, advocate for the release of political prisoners, and express support for human rights. At the time of the arrest, authorities cited her digital activity as the basis for detaining her. She was later charged under the same legal framework as al-Shehab.

On 16 February 2022, the Specialized Criminal Court sentenced al-Qahtani to 13 years in prison—half of which was suspended—along with a 13-year travel ban. The court ordered the confiscation of her phone and SIM card, the closure of her Twitter accounts, and the seizure of a book authored by Salman al-Odah, a detained Saudi cleric and prisoner of conscience.

Following an appeal by the public prosecutor, the sentence was increased on August 9, 2022, to 45 years in prison and a 45-year travel ban. The appellate court cited various provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Anti-Cybercrime Law to support its decision. An additional one-year discretionary sentence was imposed for allegedly “insulting the symbols of the State” and possessing a banned book. The appellate judgment argued that her Twitter posts were attempts to “disturb public order and destabilize the social fabric.” [para. 59]

In both cases, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) noted that the Saudi authorities used broad and undefined legal provisions to prosecute online expression. The Specialized Criminal Court, where both trials were held, is composed of judges appointed by a council under the authority of the King, raising concerns about judicial independence. Both trials were conducted behind closed doors, with limited access to counsel, and under circumstances that prevented the women from mounting an adequate defense.

The sentences handed to al-Shehab and al-Qahtani—34 and 45 years, respectively—were unprecedented and drew condemnation from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and multiple international NGOs. Both women remain imprisoned as of the last UN communication. Saudi authorities claimed that the convictions were for terrorism-related offenses and stated that the cases remain under judicial review by the Supreme Court, which returned the cases to the appellate level for reconsideration.

---

Decision Overview

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention delivered an opinion on the matter. The main issue before the Working Group was whether the arrest, prosecution, and detention of al-Shehab and al-Qahtani by Saudi authorities—stemming from their peaceful online activism—were consistent with international standards on arbitrary detention and the right to freedom of expression.

No legal basis for detention

The UNWGAD found that neither al-Shehab nor al-Qahtani were presented with a valid arrest warrant at the time of arrest, nor were they promptly informed of the reasons for their detention or the charges against them. Salma al-Shehab, in particular, was detained for 10 months before charges were filed, in direct violation of articles 3 (right to life, liberty, and security of person), 8 (right to an effective remedy), and 9 (protection from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and principles 10 (right to be informed of reasons for arrest) and 37 (right to trial within a reasonable time) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

Moreover, as noted by the Working Group, both women were subjected to detentions based on vague and overly broad provisions from Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Terrorism Law and Anti-Cybercrime Law, which the UNWGAD concluded failed to meet the requirement of legal certainty under Article 11(2) of the UDHR.

The UNWGAD emphasized that legal certainty is a foundational requirement of the principle of legality in criminal law (lex certa). To underscore this point, the Working Group referred to previous opinions where overly broad laws used to criminalize peaceful speech rendered detentions arbitrary (see opinions No. 71/2019, No. 30/2022). The Saudi Government argued that the detentions were lawful under national security provisions of domestic legislation and that due process was followed; however, the UNWGAD found these claims unsubstantiated and incompatible with international standards.

Violation of freedom of expression

According to the Working Group, both al-Shehab and al-Qahtani were detained solely due to their peaceful expressions on social media platforms such as Twitter. On this point, the Working Group reaffirmed that the expression of political opinions—particularly the support for human rights and the criticism of State policies—is protected under Article 19 of the UDHR (right to freedom of expression). The UNWGAD applied the three-part test under Article 29(2) UDHR, which permits restrictions on expression only when they:

1. Have a legal basis under national law;
2. Serve a legitimate aim (national security, public order, rights of others); and
3. Are necessary and proportionate to achieve that aim.

The Working Group held that Saudi Arabia failed to meet the criteria laid out in this test. The women’s tweets, the UNWGAD said, did not incite violence or pose any credible threat to national security. Al-Shehab’s activity consisted of retweets and hashtags in support of imprisoned activists and calls for gender equality, while al-Qahtani’s tweets were anonymous and largely focused on government accountability. The prosecution of these acts under counterterrorism laws was thus deemed an abusive application of legislation designed for entirely different contexts.

The Working Group further observed that criminalizing peaceful speech, particularly when it relates to public interest matters, cannot be justified in a democratic society. The use of legal tools such as the Anti-Cybercrime Law to penalize digital expressions constituted a disproportionate and unnecessary restriction, incompatible with international human rights standards.

Violation of the right to a fair trial

The UNWGAD found egregious violations of fair trial guarantees. As evidenced by the Working Group, al-Shehab was subjected to 13 days of incommunicado detention, interrogated without access to legal counsel, and denied confidential communication with her lawyer—even after private counsel was appointed. The State also monitored lawyer-client meetings, violating the Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

Both women were tried by the Specialized Criminal Court, a court criticized by UN treaty bodies for its lack of independence and impartiality—given that its judges are appointed by the Supreme Judicial Council, a body under executive control. This structural flaw was compounded by the use of closed proceedings without justification. The UNWGAD referred to prior findings (opinions No. 26/2019 and No. 22/2019) to conclude that the Specialized Criminal Court had been increasingly used to prosecute peaceful dissidents under terrorism charges. Furthermore, the Working Group noted that al-Shehab and al-Qahtani were sentenced to discretionary prison terms not tied to any specific offense—in direct contravention of the principle of legality.

The UNWGAD concluded that these cumulative due process violations were of such gravity as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair, in breach of articles 10 (right to a fair and public hearing) and 11 (presumption of innocence) of the UDHR.

Discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, and political opinion

The UNWGAD held that the prosecutions were rooted in discriminatory motives. Salma al-Shehab’s Shia Muslim identity, coupled with her public advocacy for women’s rights, made her a target of sectarian and gender-based repression, the Working Group opined. The interrogation records reflected verbal harassment related to her Shia background, and the severity of her sentence far exceeded that of similarly situated Sunni male defendants.

Considering this, the UNWGAD noted a pattern of discrimination against female human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia (see also Opinion No. 33/2020), and concluded that the treatment of both al-Shehab and al-Qahtani violated articles 2 (non-discrimination) and 7 (equality before the law) of the UDHR, as well as Principle 5 (protection from discrimination) of the Body of Principles.

***

In light of the aforementioned findings, the Working Group urged Saudi Arabia to release both women immediately, offer reparations to the victims, revise its legal framework, and guarantee non-repetition. It also referred the matter to the special rapporteurs on freedom of expression, torture, and counterterrorism, highlighting the urgency and gravity of the violations committed.

---