CAT/C/58/D/682/2015 Persons found guilty of the offence in question are liable to corporal punishment in Saudi Arabia 3.6 Saudi Arabia does not have a criminal code or an equivalent written law. Saudi criminal law, which is essentially based on an extremely strict interpretation of sharia, remains unwritten and the punishments meted out are basically left to the discretion of judges. For offences such as breach of trust, no penalty is specifically and explicitly provided for by law or case law. Verdicts and punishments are thus at the discretion of judges, who may sentence defendants to amputation, death or flogging if they feel that the case warrants it. 3.7 Theft is generally punishable by amputation of one or more limbs. In early 2015, a young Moroccan man was sentenced to amputation simply for failing to hand in a wallet that he had found during a trip to Saudi Arabia. Robbery, including armed robbery, is punishable by death by beheading, as in the case of seven young persons who were sentenced to death and executed for armed robbery following a particularly rushed and unfair trial.8 The complainant concludes that there is an extremely high risk that Mr. Alhaj Ali, who has been accused of breach of trust by his Saudi sponsor, would be subjected to corporal punishment or torture. Risk of extradition to the Syrian Arab Republic, where Mr. Alhaj Ali has already been the victim of torture 3.8 Mr. Alhaj Ali has also expressed fears through his lawyer that he will be tortured, subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or extradited to the Syrian Arab Republic if he is handed over to the Saudi authorities, who have a habit of expelling foreign nationals to their respective countries of origin upon completion of their sentences, even when doing so puts their lives or physical integrity at risk. 3.9 That is what happened to Zakaria Mohamed Ali, a Somali national who was arrested without charge in Saudi Arabia in April 2013 and detained for almost a year without trial and without even being informed of the charges against him. Upon his release on 17 March 2014, without any legal proceedings having been initiated, he was immediately expelled to Somalia, where the human rights situation is known to be particularly troubling, without a court order and without even having the opportunity to appeal the decision. 3.10 The complainant requests that Mr. Alhaj Ali be released immediately, in accordance with article 26 of the Riyadh Arab Agreement on Judicial Cooperation of 22 March 1983 — which provides that “in no circumstances may a period of pretrial detention exceed 60 days from the time of arrest” if the person concerned is not being prosecuted on other grounds that would justify his or her detention — and that he should remain at liberty until the Committee has issued a decision on the merits of the complaint. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 27 July 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. The State party points out that Mr. Alhaj Ali was arrested in Kenitra on 30 October 2014 pursuant to an international search and arrest warrant issued by the Riyadh office of INTERPOL at the request of the Saudi judicial authorities for breach of trust concerning a sum of 544,192 Saudi riyals. 4.2 The State party adds that, at 11.30 p.m. on 30 October 2014, once his wife had been informed of his arrest, Mr. Alhaj Ali was placed in custody at the police station in Kenitra. 8 GE.16-15793 Alkarama Foundation, “KSA: Official confirms execution of 7 young Saudi[s] to take place tomorrow”, 13 March 2013, http://en.alkarama.org/saudi-arabia/press-releases/1059-ksa-officialconfirms-execution-of-7-young-saudi-to-take-place-tomorrow (accessed on 7 June 2016). 5