A/HRC/25/60/Add.2 hallucinogens in their food. In court, it is reported that they were denied an effective defense and received a non-appealable guilty verdict. In addition to the death sentences, it was reported that Mr. Al Mashaikh was sentenced to crucifixion and put on public display for three days for being the mastermind of the robberies. In its reply, the Government of Saudi Arabia denies that there was any torture conducted during their detention, and the confessions were given by the defendants on their own freewill. Reportedly other evidence like DNA was present at the scene of the crimes, and each defendant was awarded procedural protections to guarantee fair trials. The response also denied that any of the defendants were sentenced to crucifixion. Although the Special Rapporteur appreciates the reply, he reminds the Government of the Special Rapporteur’s report to the United Nations General Assembly A/67/279 of 9 August 2012. In his report the Special Rapporteur observes that the possible safeguards given during legal process to ensure a fair trial in cases in which the death penalty might be imposed should be at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the ICCPR and that the imposition and enforcement of the death penalty following an unfair trial must be considered as particularly cruel, inhuman and degrading and in violation of article 7 of the ICCPR and articles 1 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (paras. 58, 60 and 61). The Special Rapporteur reiterates article 15 of the CAT, providing that, “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” The Special Rapporteur would also like to remind the Government of paragraph 6c of Human Rights Council resolution 8/8 of 2008, which urges States “to ensure that no statement established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made”. The Special Rapporteur finds that the Government’s reply fails to show that a serious, impartial and independent investigation was made about the allegations of torturetainted confessions. He also encourages the Government to continue its engagement with the mandate. (c) JAL 15/08/2013 Case No. SAU 7/2013 State Reply: 14/01/2014 Alleged torture during interrogation process to coerce a confession used to incriminate and substantiate a conviction for participating in terrorist activities in Saudi Arabia. 130. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Saudi Arabia has not responded to this communication dated 25 August 2013, thereby failing to cooperate with the mandate established by the Human Rights Council. This communication expressed concerns over allegations that, on 11 June 2003, Mr. Ahmed Abu Ali was arrested in Medina, Saudi Arabia, tortured in prison until he confessed to being a member of an AlQaeda cell. It is alleged that he was then transferred to Riyadh where he was subjected to further torture, practices of solitary confinement, and sleep deprivation. Finally, it is reported that Mr. Ali was transferred to the United States where the confessions he made during the interrogation processes in Saudi Arabia were used against him in a conviction for material support to the Al Qaeda network. In this context, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate paragraph 1 of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 which “Condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through intimidation, which are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all States to implement fully the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Additionally, General Assembly Resolution 66/171 and Human Rights Council Resolution 19/19, affirms in paragraph 1 “that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.” The Special Rapporteur would also like to reiterate paragraph 7b of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23, which urges States “[t]o take persistent, 95