Hussain Salam Ahmed Radhi
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2017-005-003
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2017
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 26.0667
Longitude: 50.5577
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Bahrain
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 25 November 2016, 8 July 2016
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Male
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Type of rights defended
- Unclear in SG Report
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
- Several allegations were received by special procedures about travel bans allegedly imposed on human rights defenders for their cooperation with the Human Rights Council, in particular the defenders’ participation in the thirty-second and thirty-third sessions of the Council, the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or human rights workshops. On 25 November 2016, three mandate holders raised concerns about allegations of a travel ban imposed on civil society representatives Mohammed Jawad, Ms. Nedal Al-Salman, Hussain Salam Ahmed Radhi, Mohammed Al-Tajer and Enas Oun in this regard (see A/HRC/34/75, BHR A/HRC/36/31 17 7/2016). At the time of the finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the Government.
On 8 July 2016, some mandate holders raised concerns regarding allegations of a travel ban imposed on members of civil society, Hussain Salam Ahmed Radhi, Ebtesam Abdulhusain Ali-Alsaegh, Ebrahim Al-Demistani and Abdulnabi Al-Ekry in an act of reprisal for their cooperation with the United Nations Human Rights Council, in particular their participation in the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council, and their human rights work (see A/HRC/34/75, BHR 4/2016).
- Engagement with UN body
- Other
- UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
- UN thematic world conference
- Dates of engagement
- hirty-second and thirty-third sessions of the Council, the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and unclear
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- Unclear
- Reprisal information
Travel ban
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Travel restriction
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- No
- Government response dates
- 15 August 2016 and 9 September 2016
- Government response content
Government informed that the travel ban was imposed pursuant to a decision by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, based on the provisions of article 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorizes the imposition of a travel ban on an accused person if it is considered that such action is in the interest of the investigation. The Government’s response did not address the allegations of possible reprisals.
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 0