The Prison-life of the Petitioner – ‘My Prison-life in Abu Dhabi’

The Prison-life of the Petitioner – ‘My Prison-life in Abu Dhabi’
28 October, 2013 [Download PDF - 92 KB]

[ A part of ‘Representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi, 2013′ Full Text ]

Tourists-initiate-campaign-to-boycott-Dubai-and-the-UAEThe representation to the Government of India sheds light on the active involvement of this petitioner, a THREE times of ‘Judgment Creditor’ (winner) from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi,  in the process of getting justice and its far-reaching consequences. Visit the featured report: “The legacy of torture in the UAE; you may have never heard of”. Full Text

Underground lockup

The first 21 days of my prison life was in an underground lockup at the ‘Asma’ police station. It was an overcrowded cell with a sort of “sardine treatment”. Even elementary facilities to lie down or even a sheet not provided to sleep on.

There I was subjected to the greatest ordeals by being kept incommunicado in solitary confinement in the name of interrogation. I was confined to secret detention centers in different days with all sorts of malpractices resulting in injury, bodily damage and injury to reputation.

Thereafter I was taken to” Al Wathba Central Prison”, Abu Dhabi. At the entrance, there were small cabins. I spent the very first day in one of those cells. They completely shaved off my head with a primitive type of instrument, a torture indeed.

Whenever inmates of the prison go out of the cell they also get shaved off their head. When inside, photographs are taken for identification. After seizing all my belongings including my cloths, they provided two shirts and two pants not of suitable size, indeed blue coloured rags, 2 blankets, a plastic cup and a plate intended to collect food. Both were broken and unhygienic. When I asked for a change, a policeman showed to me another shelf with worse material, playing a cruel joke on a helpless prisoner. After spending one day for complying with prison formalities, I was dispatched to block No.10.

 Central Prison

The block 10 at central prison on the ground floor of a three storied structure. A round shape hall consisting of 21 Nos. of smaller rooms for more than two hundred prisoners. There were six latrine and three bathrooms but most of them were not in useable condition, thus leaving only one latrine and a bathroom for over two hundred prisoners.

The Wathba Central prison is overcrowded with over three thousand prisoners. In scorching heat of the desert, within concrete cages, prisoners are made to live in inhuman conditions without the basic necessities of life. The food was most unpalatable and unhygienic. Prisoners sustain their life with fermented camel meat and wormy food-grains and clamoured there for a glass of cold water in the hot summer days. Not even a fan provided in those concrete cages. Many prisoners were dumped in the corridors and pinning for a little cool breeze. Even a breath of fresh air was a precious boon! The heartening fact is that many innocents are made to languish here under the banner of criminals which cast a stigma on them for life.

Food Schedule

The prison authorities strictly prohibited outside food. The prisoners were cut off completely from outside. Prisoners had no access to daily news not to say about electronic media. They were victims of perpetual torture, mentally and physically. For elementary rituals in cleanliness, the prisoners were provided with a 100 gm. Bath-soap along with 200 gm. Of detergent, for a period of 50 – 60 days.

The food schedule was as follows:

In the morning: A glass of tea, a piece of bread with a trickle of jam or film of cheese.

Lunch at noon : An oily rice preparation with a piece of camel meat or the like. Occasionally, an orange or an apple.

In the evening : A piece of bread, Lentil curry and a glass of tea without milk.

No other item is provided by the authorities. For many weeks, we couldn’t get a tooth brush. Local inmates usually get toothpaste, brush, writing papers and pens through their special visitors. The plea to get a special visit, always used to be rejected by the public prosecutor.

Visiting Schedule

At the central jail there was a normal visiting schedule, every Thursday, from 4 to 6 P.M (2 hours) and on every Friday between 8 and 11 AM. (3 hours) males can visit the inmates. In order to get a place in the long queue, the visitors would have to start their journey at midnight.

The visiting room is constructed with an area of 3 x 4 meters, with two line steel fencing. It is the only visiting area for the entire male prisoners of the central jail. At every nook and comer police were posted. In the dense crowd, it is very difficult to get in and to see the visitor. A visitor can bring cigarettes for their prisoners. Only permitted item is cigarette for the normal visitor.

Prison Clinic

There is a clinic in the jail compound. But meant only for the locals and other Arabic citizens. No action would be taken by authorities if prisoners fall sick.

Lighting System

The entire electrical system in the cells are controlled from outside by guarding police, who never bother to use it in a proper way, for weeks the light may be on and for weeks, it may be in total darkness.


The prisoners were regularly flogged alleging that they violated some rule or other. A person resorting to hunger strike gets 10 Nos. of “major flogging”. It can entail delay in his release from the Jail.

Cleaning Duties

Only Indian, Pakistani and Bangladesh prisoners were called for cleaning duties.

The Agony and Pain

During the entire period of detention, we were subjected to all forms of humiliation, mental agony and unimaginable pain. Though the prison with appealing exterior has been constructed, that remained only a show-piece for the police administration to parade before visiting personalities from the outside world. We, along with three thousand other prisoners in the central prison had been subjected to the most cruel torture and deprivation of basic amenities.

The X-rays and other medical documents would demonstrate the pitiable conditions of us. The physical injuries inflicted on us, had endangered the health and the life of ours. This had the effect of reducing us to nervous wrecks.

Financial Losses

I suffered huge losses for non-communication and by not allowing me to have meeting with any person or to sign any paper with the outside world. This resulted in the cancellation of contracts and liability to pay damages to various departments, contractors, dealers and many and varied financial obligations. Since, I was the prime operator of my Trading and Contracting establishments, my absence would have its natural consequence of throwing the different works of the establishment out of gear.

A Long Journey To Court

The prisoners look for the day when they are presented in Court as that is the only occasion when they could breathe fresh air and see the outside world and fellow human beings. The very process of journey to Court is an ordeal. The prisoners are informed about their production in Court only the previous day. Such prisoners who are to be produced before the Court are picked up from different prison cells. The process starts soon after midnight.

The 120 km. trip to the Court and the return there from through desert in harsh hot weather, thus often become ordeals and created agonising situations. Most of the prisoners fall sick for a long duration of about two weeks after every such Court trip.

Whenever a prisoner is taken out of the jail, they will be dragged with shackles, manacled and cuffed on both hands and legs. Such inhuman treatment is inflicted even on women contrary to all injunctions of Islamic faith. We had been handcuffed and legs placed in the painful grip of fetters on all twenty seven occasions when we were taken from prison to Court to face the trial, in an armoured covered truck. Even when its capacity was 15 persons, about 50 persons were packed like salted fish making each one gasp for breath during the journey.

On reaching Court premises, the prisoners are all again packed in a small and narrow room without any ventilation whatsoever. The local prisoners are permitted to smoke there by the support of policemen. We, non-smokers were choked by the dense tobacco smoke gathering inside the tiny hole without any air -outlet. The Court finds time only to deal with a very few cases and most of the cases get adjourned. After returning from the Court, every prisoner was usually subjected to an examination by Alsatian dogs.

Principal Source:

The Prison-life of the Petitioner – ‘My Prison-life in Abu Dhabi’
[Download PDF - 92 KB]

NOTE: Further details of the establishments and related documents other than what is listed above are also available at:

Shri. Panikkaveettil K. Jabir,
Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell,
5th Floor, Metro Plaza Building, Market Road, Kerala, Kochi – 682018.

[ A part of ‘Representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi, 2013′ Full Text ]

The representation to the Government of India sheds light on the active involvement of this petitioner in the process of getting justice and its far-reaching consequences. Visit the featured report: “The legacy of torture in the UAE; you may have never heard of”. A true story of an Indian national, a torture survivor of inside the regime’’s brutal prison in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and most importantly a THREE times of ‘Judgment Creditor’ (winner) from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Full Text

It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong! -
Share This Flag on Your Website

Share this flag

Posted in Human Rights, UAE Business, UAE Human Rights, UAE Investments, UAE Investors, UAE Prison, UAE Torture, Uncategorized, United Arab Emirates | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The details of Business Establishments in Abu Dhabi, owned by the petitioner

The details of Business Establishments in Abu Dhabi, owned by the petitioner.
28 October, 2013 [Download PDF – 88 KB]

[ A part of ‘Representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi, 2013′ Full Text ]

abu-dhabi-judgment-for-sale_badge-blueThe representation to the Government of India sheds light on the active involvement of this petitioner, a THREE times of ‘Judgment Creditor’ (winner) from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi,  in the process of getting justice and its far-reaching consequences. Visit the featured report: “The legacy of torture in the UAE; you may have never heard of”. Full Text

  1. Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est’ – in 1982

The business carried on under the name and style of ‘Ramla Electro-Mechanical Establishment’, registered quick prosperity by efficient and satisfactory services rendered by it in various activities connected with ‘Project Estimation to Sale, Installation and Commissioning of HVAC Plants, Elevators, Building Automation, Assemblies including Switchgear Busbars, Architectural Salvage, Renovation, Building Demolition, Auction& Bulk Scrap Trading.

‘Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est’ was one of the first companies in Abu Dhabi, which introduced a number of specialized services. It includes:

Providing HVAC expertise to main contractors in the process from:

(a) Project estimation to commissioning requiring 1000s of tons of air conditioning; as a part of the maintenance responsibility, the company with the extended responsibility for regularly checking the building’s air quality compliance etc.   (b) Expertise in advanced technology of high-rise buildings in the field of ‘Maintenance of HVAC, Elevators, Freight Elevators, Lift & Escalators, Engineering issues, architectural salvage, building demolition and dismantlement methodologies. (c) Export and Re-export (New & Reconditioned): HVAC Chillers, ‘Electro-Mechanical Equipment, Oil & Gas and Marine Equipment, Heavy Duty Construction Equipment and a Luxury of different products from Industrial Kitchens to Flight Kitchens.

(d) Support/Organize Auction or Closed Bids: Sell Equipments via Auction; Sell Equipment/Scrap Onsite. (e) Equipment Rental: Air Coolers (100 to 1000 Tons), Generator Sets (Diesel Generators), Scaffoldings etc. The ‘Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est’ was operational at Sheikh Saif Bin Mohamed Al Nahyan building at Mussafah, also had staff quarters and large warehouse blocks, wherein many costly Electro-Mechanical instruments were kept.

From 1986 onwards, Mr. Isa Ahamed Jafar Hasan Jafar, a native of Abu Dhabi was appointed as the new sponsor of the firm. It is to be emphasized that the petitioner was a foreign investor with absolute share in his business wherein Mr. Isa Ahmed was his local sponsor. To substantiate this status of the petitioner, the true copy of the trade license, including the Municipal and the Chamber of Commerce of Abu Dhabi (Arabic & English) is produced as Exhibit No.A1’

2. “Summer Pool Building Material Trading Est” – in 1987

In 1987, the petitioner started his 2nd establishment, a Trading firm under the license of “Summer Pool Building Material Trading Est”. The establishment’s showroom was occupying an entire ground floor of a Nine-Story Building, located on the Airport Road, Abu Dhabi. The petitioner was the sole investor of the firm, authorized the petitioner’s brother-in-law to work on his behalf and he was remunerated for the services rendered. It was sponsored by the same person, Mr. Isa Ahmed Hasan Jafar.

3. Premier General Contracting & Maintenance Est”- in 1990

On 15/05/1990, the petitioner entered in General Contracting Business with own investment in infrastructure, licensing, bond, guarantee etc. The 3rd concern, namely “Premier General Contracting & Maintenance Est”, was started for general execution of contracting works under the name of Mr Isa Ahamed Jafar Hasan Jafar.

The above said firm was registered with Onshore and Offshore; Oil & Gas Sectors, PWD, other Government and Semi-Government Companies in the UAE. The petitioner had developed various commercial activities like execution of general contracts, land and marine services for petrol and gas fields etc. The true copy of the trade license (Arabic & English) including the Special Power of Attorney from the Sponsor, is produced herewith as ‘Exhibit Series No.B1’

The Clientele

By his dedication and perseverance, the petitioner could acquire the confidence and goodwill of various customers, including the Royal regime of Abu Dhabi.

Clients included Private & Stately Homes, Oil & Gas Companies, Royal Palaces and Government Agencies, Commercial & Industrial Properties and Major Contractors. The task undertaken to suit client’s requirements includes the Private Department of H.H. Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the Office of H.E. Sheikh Saif Bin Mohamed Al Nahyan and the Department of Social Services & Commercial Buildings (Sheikh Khalifa Buildings).

The petitioner was closely attached with the Private Office of the then Ruler, H.H. Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan. In1992, the Ruler of Abu Dhabi awarded his first seven buildings located at Abu Dhabi Corniche, to the petitioner’s firm ‘Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est’ to initiate demolition. A part of this voucher of ‘His Highness Office’ is produced herewith as ‘Exhibit Series No.A1 (Page No.5).

Business Loss

Loss of physical assets, material damages, strategic resources, trust, reputation, loss of and corporate identity; the goodwill, prestige, image, opportunities and social status, all painstakingly built over two decades of prime of his life were lost. A corporate identity established with due professional care and attention had been tarnished. The petitioner further lost all his business in hand, avenues to sign up new work contracts, and all his business establishments along with the costly materials stored in the ware-houses, estimated together to be of the value of about 100 Million US Dollars, due to the illegal arrest and incarceration, in the year 1995. The creation of trust and reputation that worth many times the worth of its physical assets.

The anguish resultant from the deprivation of his establishments, assets and reputation earned exclusively through the untiring personal efforts of the petitioner causes extreme mental depression which will virtually make his life only a vegetable existence.

The details of Business Establishments in Abu Dhabi, owned by the petitioner[Download PDF – 88 KB]

NOTE: Further details of the establishments and related documents other than what is listed above are also available at:

Shri. Panikkaveettil K. Jabir,
Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell,
5th Floor, Metro Plaza Building, Market Road, Kerala, Kochi – 682018.

[ A part of ‘Representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi, 2013′ Full Text ]

The representation to the Government of India sheds light on the active involvement of this petitioner in the process of getting justice and its far-reaching consequences. Visit the featured report: “The legacy of torture in the UAE; you may have never heard of”. A true story of an Indian national, a torture survivor of inside the regime’’s brutal prison in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and most importantly a THREE times of ‘Judgment Creditor’ (winner) from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Full Text


Posted in Human Rights, UAE Business, UAE Human Rights, UAE Investments, UAE Investors, UAE Prison, UAE Torture, Uncategorized, United Arab Emirates | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

UAE: Reports of systematic torture in jails

UAE: Reports of systematic torture in jails
June 27, 2013 Amnesty

Sheik-Mohamed-bin-Zayed-al-Nahyan-of Abu Dhabi-hired-Erik-PrinceUnited Arab Emirates state security officers have subjected detainees to systematic mistreatment, including torture, say hand-written letters from detainees smuggled out of jails, Alkarama, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.

The groups obtained 22 statements written by some of the 94people on trial for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government. The mistreatment described in the letters is consistent with other allegations of torture at UAE state security facilities, and indicates that torture is a systematic practice at these facilities.

The statements describe conditions in pre-trial detention in varying levels of detail.  Several detainees describe mistreatment that clearly meets the definition of torture as outlined in article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the UAE ratified in July 2012. “I was beaten with a plastic tube all over my body,” one detainee said. “I was tied to a chair and threatened with electrocution if I didn’t talk. I was insulted and humiliated.”

“The UAE’s judicial system will lose all credibility if these allegations are swept under the carpet while the government’s critics are put behind bars,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Unless the government investigates and takes action, it will be hard to avoid concluding that torture is routine practice in the UAE.”

On March 4, 2013, at the first trial hearing, some defendants told the judge they had been seriously ill-treated during months in detention. They described prolonged solitary confinement, exposure to continuous fluorescent lighting that made it difficult to sleep, inadequate heating, and hooding when they were taken from their cells — including while being taken to the toilet or for interrogation. They said they had been repeatedly insulted by prison guards. People present in the court said that the judge ordered that the detainees undergo medical examinations, but these did not take place.

The letters obtained by the rights groups indicate that these forms of mistreatment were systematic. All of the detainees who described their conditions said they were held in solitary confinement where they were constantly exposed to bright light in their cells.

All but six said they were subjected to extremes of temperature and that men who claimed to be state security officials interrogated the detainees while they were blindfolded. Two described being threatened with electrocution.

“I heard muffled sounds and screams, suggesting systematic torture, knocking on the iron doors to prevent me from sleeping, and very loud noises from the AC hatch, like airplane engines,” another detainee said.

The allegations in the letters are consistent with previous allegations of torture. Amnesty International documented credible claims of torture in 2003 and raised concerns over the treatment of a UAE national in 2007, along with a US-Lebanese national in 2009.

In September 2012, a Syrian national, Abdulelah al-Jadani, told Human Rights Watch that officers at a state security facility beat and whipped him, held him in painful stress positions, and hung him from the wall by his arms and legs. He also said he was subjected to severe sleep deprivation and extreme cold in his cell.

At the time Al-Jadani’s allegations emerged, the whereabouts of the Emirati political detainees were unknown, and local sources told the organizations that it was likely they were being held in the same state security facility where al-Jadani alleges he was tortured. On September 6, six of the 94 detainees appeared before a judge at the Supreme Court. The son of one of the detainees was in the courtroom and reported that they seemed dishevelled, disoriented, and distressed.

Other detainees have also alleged that they have been tortured.  One is Saud Kulaib, who is being held in Al Sader jail, but spent five months in incommunicado detention between December 29 and May 27. Since his move to Al Sader, Kulaib has told family members and other inmates that he spent all of that time in solitary confinement, and that he was subjected to extremes of temperature and sleep deprivation.

He also alleges that officers beat him, sliced his hand open with a razor blade, threatened to pull out his fingernails and told him that his wife was in detention and on hunger strike:

“I was suspended several times from the legs, by an iron rod, in an extremely painful position, between two chairs while my hands were tied with an iron chain, leaving marks that are still visible today,” said Kulaib.

“I was then severely beaten on the legs for more than half an hour. Next cold water was poured over my head and body. At times my clothes were taken off, leaving only my under-shorts, to torture me in the manner already described.”

It is not clear what charges Kulaib is facing. Local sources believe that his detention relates to comments he made on social media about the alleged torture of one of the 94 defendants, Ahmed al-Suweidi. On June 10, 2012 Kulaib posted a comment on Twitter in which he said that al-Suweidi was “being exposed to severe torture under the supervision of a high official.”

In September, Alkarama and Human Rights Watch documented the enforced disappearance of al-Suweidi for a period of six months. Local activists believe that a forced confession from al-Suweidi forms the basis of the prosecution’s case in the trial. On March 4, during the first session of the trial,   al-Suweidi, told the judges: “I know that what I’m going to say may cost my life, but I deny the charges and I ask the court to protect my life and the life of my family,” witnesses who were in the courtroom said.

“Not investigating such serious allegations of torture would add to the litany of the violation of the 94 defendants’ rights, from the vague the charges brought against them for their association with al-Islah, or the Reform and Social Guidance Association, to their rights of defence being repeatedly flouted,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.

Another group of 30 people accused of operating a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood have also alleged that they were tortured. On June 19, UAE authorities referred them for trial at the Federal Supreme Court. The authorities have not released their names, although local sources believe they include 13 Egyptians detained between November 21 and January 7.

The son of one of the detainees, Dr Ali Sonbul, told Human Rights Watch that family members of the detainees who have visited the men in prison told him that they are being kept in solitary confinement and have been subjected to “psychological and physical torture.”

To mark the International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture on June 26, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Alkarama call on UAE authorities to:

•    Provide independent forensic medical examinations to defendants who say they have been tortured; •    Exclude any evidence obtained by torture from any trial proceedings; •    Ensure  prompt, independent, and impartial investigations  into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances, and other serious human rights violations and bring those responsible  to justice in proceedings that comply with international fair trial standards; and •    Ensure that victims of torture, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention receive full reparations. •    Provide for the independent inspection of all detention centers. •    Ratify the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

On  June 7, the foreign minister, Dr Anwar Gargash, told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that any allegation of torture in the UAE would be “dealt with in accordance with the laws of our country and the measures provided by the law will be taken in case of violation.”

“To prove his intentions to the international community, Dr Gargash should order investigations into all allegations of torture and mistreatment committed by the state security services, including those made by the UAE 94,” said Rachid Mesli, director of Alkarama’s legal department.

For further information, please contact Elizabeth Berton-Hunter 416-363-9933 ext 332

The strategy extends far beyond! Read more reports on UAE

UAE behind Egypt coup d’état:
Cash and loans from UAE to crush ‘Arab Uprising’.  Strategy beyond the borders!

UAE: Arming up with mercenaries!
What possible security risks could have motivated the UAE to hire outside help?

Photograph: The Colombians had entered the United Arab Emirates posing as construction workers. In fact, they were soldiers for a secret American-led mercenary army being built by Erik Prince, the billionaire founder of ‘Blackwater Worldwide’, with $529 million from the oil-soaked sheikdom. Read Article at New York Times: Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan of Abu Dhabi hired Erik Prince to build a fighting force

Lieutenant General Sheikh Saif Bin Zayed AlNahyanThe Making of a Police State

Boycott-UAE  Video:

Abudhabi's-sadistic-sheikhThe man in this video, seen torturing an Afghani businessman, is none other than Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan, the brother of the President of United Arab Emirates. The UAE interior minister, Saif bin Zayed al Nahyan, is also one of Sheikh Issa’s brothers. Policemen (ADPolice) in uniform pin the victim to the floor as the sheikh uses an automatic rifle, whips, electric cattle prods, wooden planks with protruding nails and even his Mercedes SUV to torture his victim.

Sheikh Issa was acquitted in an Emirati court for the incident. The court ruled that “he was not responsible for the crime, that the sheikh was under the influence of drugs (medicine) that left him unaware of his actions”. [Warning: the images may be disturbing] View Video

Read Featured Report: UAE PRISON

Posted in Amnesty International, Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, UAE Human Rights, UAE Prison, UAE Torture, United Arab Emirates | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

UAE coup trial offers window into wider Gulf fears

FILE - In this Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 file photo, Ahmed Mansour, an Emirati blogger and a human rights activists talks with his children after he was pardoned by UAE's president and released from jail in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In early March 2013, a total of 94 people were put on trial on charges of seeking to overthrow the UAE government and holding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. The defendants pleaded not guilty and complained of abuses after their arrests. Mansour and four others including a former legal adviser to the UAE's armed forces were among the first to face arrests for alleged anti-state crimes in early 2011 after signing an online petition urging for political reforms, including free elections for parliament. (AP Photo/Kamran Jebreili, File)

FILE – In this Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 file photo, Ahmed Mansour, an Emirati blogger and a human rights activists talks with his children after he was pardoned by UAE’s president and released from jail in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In early March 2013, a total of 94 people were put on trial on charges of seeking to overthrow the UAE government and holding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. The defendants pleaded not guilty and complained of abuses after their arrests. Mansour and four others including a former legal adviser to the UAE’s armed forces were among the first to face arrests for alleged anti-state crimes in early 2011 after signing an online petition urging for political reforms, including free elections for parliament. (AP Photo/Kamran Jebreili, File)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — One is a former judge. Another is a past president of the lawyers’ association in the United Arab Emirates. Among the more than 90 suspects are also teachers, civil servants, business owners and even a cousin of one of the UAE’s ruling sheiks.

Prosecutors describe them as members of an Islamist network seeking to topple the leadership in one of the wealthiest and most stable corners of the Middle East.

Their defenders portray the group as victims of an Arab Spring-induced panic among Gulf Arab rulers who perceive threats from many directions, including Egypt’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood and reformist chatter on social media.

But whatever emerges from the mass trial that began last month in Abu Dhabi also speaks to issues that reach well beyond the allegations and sullied reputations in the UAE’s tight-knit professional communities. The case – from the arrests to the court sessions to the media controls on coverage – reflects a fundamental retooling of how the Western-allied Gulf states approach the business of using and keeping their power.

Once desperate to keep political crackdowns out of sight, Gulf authorities have increasingly used high-profile tactics to try to keep a lid on calls for reforms. Hardly a day goes by without some backlash in the Gulf Arab states, an arc of ruling families from Kuwait to Oman.

Dozens of online activists and social media contributors have been jailed for posts deemed offensive to rulers. Espionage allegations have been trumpeted, including Saudi Arabia’s claims last month that officials broke up a suspected Iranian-linked spy ring.

Saudi officials, meanwhile, are considering linking social media accounts to national IDs in a move that critics fear could increase monitoring. The country’s top cleric, Grand Mufti Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, denounced Twitter users last month as being part of “a council of clowns.”

“There is a paradox in all this,” said Christopher Davidson, an expert on Gulf affairs at Britain’s Durham University. “There is nothing at the moment to suggest the Gulf regimes are in any immediate danger, but they are definitely acting like they are. This might even have the effect of accelerating dissent.”

Caught in between is Washington.

U.S. interests are deeply intertwined with the Gulf’s Sunni sheiks and kings, who allow American military bases, make major arms purchases and share Washington’s worries about Iran’s nuclear program and its expanding military profile. But the U.S. also has raised concern about the Gulf’s clampdown on dissent, particularly the squeeze on social media in a region that has one of the world’s highest per capita use of Facebook and Twitter.

“America is not going to abandon its Gulf allies. There’s far too much at stake,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center based in Geneva. “These crackdowns, however, make it increasingly hard for the Americans to look the other way.”

For decades, the framework for the Gulf’s ruling families has been essentially a swap: They offered generous handouts such as state jobs and discount-rate housing in exchange for political passivity.

The Arab Spring reopened some festering grievances, led by Bahrain’s uprising by majority Shiites and lower-level unrest in Saudi Arabia’s Shiite pockets. It also encouraged other challenges to the status quo such as youth demanding more job opportunities in Oman and Kuwaiti opposition lawmakers growing bolder in political battles with the ruling clan.

The UAE has not faced street protests. Yet it has waged some of the most systematic sweeps in the Gulf against perceived opposition from an Islamist society called al-Islah, or Reform, which for years was allowed to operate on the margins as long as members did not push against the ruling system.

The regional turmoil, however, upended the pact. UAE authorities began to see al-Islah as a pathway for the Muslim Brotherhood, which claimed power in Egypt after the fall of Hosni Mubarak and – in the UAE’s view – seeks to eventually bring down Western-friendly dynasties in the Gulf.

In early March, a total of 94 people were put on trial on charges of seeking to overthrow the UAE government and holding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. The defendants pleaded not guilty and complained of abuses after their arrests.

Among the group – including more than a dozen women – are several lawyers led by Mohamed Al-Roken, former head of the UAE Jurists’ Association; judges such as Ahmed Al-Zaabi, who has been detained more than a year; and Sultan Bin Kayed Al-Qasimi, a senior figure in al-Islah and the cousin of the ruler in Ras al-Khaimah, the northernmost of the UAE’s seven emirates. Others include university professors, businessmen and bloggers.

UAE officials decline to discuss details of the case or comment on the ongoing trial, which only hand-picked media have been allowed to observe. The next session is scheduled for April 16.

But senior security figures such as Dubai police chief Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim have repeatedly raised alarms about alleged Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. In October, the UAE’s foreign minister, Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, told reporters that “the Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in the nation-state.”

Egypt has grown increasingly bitter about the comments and crackdowns, including agreements by the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council for greater security collaboration in areas including domestic opposition.

At an Arab League summit last month, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi issued thinly veiled warnings to Gulf states to respect Egypt’s policies. Last week, Egypt’s foreign ministry summoned a UAE envoy in Cairo for talks concerning 11 Egyptians detained on charges of training the alleged coup plotters.

“The UAE crackdowns are definitely part of wider efforts across the Gulf against what is seen as threats,” said Rori Donaghy, a coordinator at the London-based Emirates Center for Human Rights. “The collective idea of security in the region means we will likely be seeing more arrests and more trials with narratives such as coup plots.”

So far, the UAE’s case against the 94-member group has been built around social media posts and interviews on issues such as the wave of changes in the region and the limited public voice in political affairs of the UAE, which is led by a federation of seven ruling families.

In one court session, the defense lawyer tried to poke holes in claims about allegedly subversive literature favored by al-Islah, including works by Muslim Brotherhood writer Sayyid Qutb, who was hanged by Egyptian authorities in 1966. The books, the lawyer noted, are not banned in the UAE.

Dubai-based rights activist Ahmed Mansour sees the trial as part of the UAE’s attempts to crush any group that could be “physiologically empowered by the Arab Spring.”

Mansour and four others – including a former legal adviser to the UAE’s armed forces – were among the first to face arrests for alleged anti-state crimes in early 2011 after signing an online petition urging for political reforms, including free elections for parliament.

“It’s clear that there are some agreements between some of the (Gulf) counties, on the highest and most powerful levels, that no chances should be taken and no compromise should be allowed,” he said. “This is happening no matter what the cost is and how painful that could be on internal or international levels.”


UAE: Unfair Mass Trial of 94 Dissidents
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) authorities have compounded serious pre-trial violations of fair trial rights by arbitrarily denying family members, international observers, and the international media access to the mass trial of 94 critics of the government, a coalition of seven international human rights organizations said today…UAE: Unfair Mass Trial of 94 Dissidents

Representation for ‘Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms’
Representation for ‘Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms’ – [Strategy Formulation and Implementation of a Mutual Human Rights Law and Reparation Mechanisms Between the Government of India and the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries, mandating our elected representatives and officials to eliminate discrimination and imbalances of Non-resident Indians (NRIs) working in different countries. This also involves the recognition and protection of the dignity and respect of individuals]. Get the copy: Representation for ‘Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms’

Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, UAE Human Rights | Leave a comment

Emirates Crush Dissent at Home, Tarnishing Image Abroad

Emirates Crush Dissent at Home, Tarnishing Image Abroad
March 21, 2013

[Written by Bret Nelson, Senior Research Assistant, Freedom in the World]

Emirates-Crush-Dissent-at-Home-Abu-DhabiThe United Arab Emirates (UAE) has gone to great lengths to market itself to the world as a cosmopolitan oasis and regional hub for education, culture, and finance. Substantial donations to New York University and the Sorbonne have lured these prestigious institutions to open satellite campuses in Abu Dhabi. The Guggenheim and Louvre have also expanded their collections to satellite museums in the Emirati capital. However, as the UAE authorities escalate their repression of civil society, the cracks in the country’s veneer of relative tolerance are becoming more apparent.

In recent weeks, the UAE has made headlines for its crackdown on Emiratis advocating for expanded civil liberties and political freedoms. Much of the attention has been focused on the government’s response to the Islamist group Al-Islah (Association for Reform and Guidance), a perceived affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood that the authorities claim is intent on violently overthrowing the regime. The UAE recently put over 90 real or suspected Islah activists on trial for allegedly planning a coup. However, there is no evidence that Al-Islah is anything other than a civil society group calling for closer adherence to Islamic precepts in everyday life. The debate over whether Al-Islah is in league with foreign groups like the Muslim Brotherhood is a red herring that distracts from more pressing concerns about the continued crackdown on civil society in general.

Despite the breakneck pace of its modernization and economic development, the UAE remains one of the more repressive countries in a highly repressive region. While less than a quarter of its roughly 8 million residents are citizens, the political system allows just 129,000 citizens to vote for half of the seats in a pseudo-legislative advisory body that possesses no real power. The other half is appointed by the government, which in turn is run by a council of the seven emirates’ dynastic rulers.

Although regime apologists claim that there is no support for political reform among Emiratis, an unprecedented number of activists, reformists, bloggers, judges, and lawyers—not all of whom are Islamists—have been arrested over the past two years as the authorities attempt to inoculate themselves against any democratic contagion from the Arab Spring.

In addition to domestic dissidents, foreign academics and nongovernmental organizations are being swept up in the regime’s crackdown. The UAE recently denied entry to Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a scholar from the London School of Economics and an outspoken critic of the UAE’s repression of political reform advocates. He had been scheduled to speak, at a University of Sharjah conference on the Arab Spring, about the uprising in Bahrain, which the Bahraini government has brutally suppressed with military support from the UAE. In 2012, Matt Duffy, a professor of journalism at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, was released from his contract and expelled from the country after he criticized government policies toward freedoms of expression and the press.

In March 2012, the local offices of the National Democratic Institute, which is funded by the U.S. government, and Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Foundation were shut down by the UAE authorities. The RAND Corporation and Gallup were also forced to shutter their offices last year. Clearly these are not Islamist groups, nor is it likely that they planned a violent overthrow of the regime.

Such repression earned the country score declines in Freedom in the World 2013, the latest edition of Freedom House’s annual report on political rights and civil liberties. The UAE currently ranks among the bottom 20 countries worldwide in every civil liberties category that Freedom House measures save one: rule of law. Even in that category, it is still in the bottom 25 percent and tied with countries like Mauritania, Venezuela, and Qatar.

The UAE is not the only wealthy Gulf country that has intensified repression of civil society since the Arab Spring. Both Oman and Qatar have stepped up efforts to stifle dissent among their populations. Saudi Arabia remains among the most repressive environments in the world, and the violent response by the Bahraini government to its people’s calls for political reform is well documented. Yet the Gulf countries, especially the UAE and Qatar, are very protective of their public image and prestige abroad. Indeed, Qatar is keen to portray itself not just as the host of Al-Jazeera, but as the generous sponsor of popular uprisings in places like Libya and Syria.

It is also important to note that all of the Gulf countries are key allies of the United States. The Sunni minority regime in Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has been able to violently suppress dissent without strong objections from Washington. The UAE recently made a significant purchase of U.S. weapons systems in an attempt to deter aggression from Iran, and Qatar houses an important U.S. air base and logistical hub. All of these countries would be crucial to the United States in any potential showdown with Iran. But when U.S. envoys ignore human rights abuses in these countries, or worse yet, explain them away, as Ambassador to the UAE Michael Corbin recently did in an interview with the Khaleej Times, the United States makes itself complicit in the repression.

As recent history has shown in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in the region, the continued targeting of nonviolent Islamist groups by authoritarian regimes only adds to those groups’ credibility and support among the public, and weakens the legitimacy of the authorities. If the UAE government wants to convince citizens that its policies are better for the country’s future than the program of the opposition, it ought to engage in public debate and civil discourse with the Islamists or any other reformist group, creating an arena for free expression in which all sides can make their case without fear of deportation, imprisonment, or disappearance.

Source: FreedomHouse

Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Islamist group Al-Islah, Muslim Brotherhood | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Gift with Lots of Baggage

Sarah Leah Whitson

Earlier this month Mayor Rahm Emanuel celebrated the opening of the United Arab Emirates-Manchester City Field at Haas Park, praising the facilities paid for and named after the UAE and Manchester City FC, the English soccer club owned by its ruling family. Chicagoans should not let theUAE’s very public association with a child and family-friendly project blind them to the realities of the UAE.

This a country where people who attempt to exercise their right to free speech and peaceful dissent are likely to find themselves in arbitrary detention, where lawyers are harassed and even deported for their efforts to defend peaceful dissidents, and where migrant workers, who make up about 95 percent of the work force, face extraordinary exploitation. In the last year the situation has deteriorated so significantly that on October 26 the European Parliament issued an urgent resolution calling on its strategic partner to call a halt to an ongoing campaign of repression and intimidation against its citizenry.

On October 13, two days after Mayor Emanuel praised the UAE’s contribution to Chicago, UAE State Security forces arrested Mansoor al-Ahmadi, vice-president of the UAE Student Union, bringing to 64 the total of peaceful activists locked up so far this year in this country with a population a lot smaller than metropolitan Chicago. Worse, the whereabouts of 62 of them is unknown, an invitation to further abuse of their rights.

Continue reading

Posted in UAE Human Rights | Leave a comment

UAE: EU Condemns Emirates Rights Climate

European Parliament Approves Resolution Despite Intense Lobbying by Abu Dhabi
October 29, 2012

(Brussels)– The European Parliament on October 26, 2012, adopted a resolution on the deteriorating human rights situation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

For the first time the European Parliament has formally commented on the UAE’s human rights record, which has worsened significantly in recent months.

It is the first time that the European Parliament has formally commented on the UAE’s human rights record, which has worsened significantly in recent months. The Parliament in Strasbourg adopted the resolution despite vigorous lobbying from the UAE. The UAE’s ambassador to the European Union said in a letter to parliament members that the resolution could “needlessly damage EU-UAE relations.”

Since the beginning of the year UAE authorities have detained without charge scores of civil society activists, some of whom have ties to a nonviolent Islamist group, Al-Islah– including prominent human rights lawyers, judges, and student leaders.

Continue reading

Posted in Human Rights, UAE Human Rights | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

United Arab Emirates and Britain: best of friends

Foreign Office ministers continue to give UAE a cover of respectability the authoritarian regime does not deserve

Editorial The Guardian, Friday 19 October 2012

Human rights are so essential to Britain’s foreign policy objectives that they are part of our DNA. That is what a Foreign Office spokesman said with a straight face when the foreign affairs select committee rightly criticised the government for refusing to back a boycott of the grand prix in Bahrain. Are they part of Alistair Burt’s DNA? The Middle East minister lavished praise and friendship this week on the United Arab Emirates in a speech to the 4th Abu Dhabi Investment Forum.

The UAE is many things to many people. It is home to 100,000 Britons. It is Britain’s 16th largest export market, with exports last year worth £4.7bn. By the same token, the Emiratis are all over Britain. Think the Emirates Skyline, the London Gateway, or Manchester City.

To some of its own citizens, the UAE presents another face, that of a petrified, authoritarian monarchy which cracks down on peaceful demonstrations, throws 64 political and human rights activists in prison, tortures some, strips others of their citizenship, and carries on in a manner which would make Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak glow with pride. In fact, when Mubarak’s security chief Omar Suleiman fled Egypt, it is no coincidence it was to the UAE that he went.

Its rulers are petrified because what is happening in the rest of the Arab world, and particularly Egypt, is also taking place there. Emirati society is close-knit and homogenous, and lacks the Sunni-Shia schism that plagues Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia. This means hardliners in federal government like Sheikh Khalifa’s half-brother Mohammed bin Zayed cannot blame Iran for trouble at home. They do blame the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation which the UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan denounced as an organisation encroaching on the sovereignty and integrity of nations. All that is encroaching on this Gulf state is the need for democratic reform. In the UAE’s case it was expressed moderately and non-violently in the form of a petition lodged with the president in March last year, demanding the establishment of an elected national assembly. Only 30% of UAE citizens are allowed to elect only half of the assembly members. The signatories were secular as well as Islamist, but the reaction to it was ferocious. Waves of arrests, detainees held without contact, lawyers arrested, solitary confinement and regular beatings.

What makes the UAE interesting is the cover of respectability Britain continues to give it. If it ignores the wishes of citizens, the UAE is sensitive to its international image, which Mr Burt protects and adorns. Is support for autocracy in the post-Arab spring world part of Britain’s DNA too? Mr Burt is also minister for north Africa , where Muslim Brotherhood governments are supported by Britain.

Related Links:-
UAE appears to be irritated over the criticism by EU of its Human Rights Violations.  Always they prefer to wear the ‘goat skin’.
Corrupt practices in UAE:

UAE is important trading partner for EU But European Parliament resolution irked its rulers.

Posted in Human Rights, UAE Human Rights | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Human Rights – Expanding horizons

Justice K. Sukumaran

‘The records of the case of the Delhi High Court would expose one of the worst violations of those human rights in an oil rich country. And that too, in spite of the judiciary of that very state, proclaiming the innocence of an Indian, who toiled in those desert lands, but had been tortured by a wily policeman, to leave the country, but without even a single Dirham from his many million savings of 18 years duration. Curiously the Indian bureaucrat was fiddling even when an Indian citizen’s house was burning. Thanks to the vision and dynamism, the Human Rights Commission of India sensed the tragedy, and asked the Government of India to explain. It is yet to obey the direction of the Commission to furnish an explanation for the continued inaction’

Human Rights – Expanding horizons

Human beings have always enjoyed a privileged position among God’s creations or as the finer products of evolution. They are not always associated with strength. The saying “To err is human” is an acknowledgement of weakness. When the weak are in larger proportions, law enters with its protective correctness. That is implicit in a statement which portrays the law’s visible representative in favourable colours.

The orthodox view has it that the police brought universal benefits, especially to the weaker sections of the society. ( See ‘The Politics of Police’, Robert Reiner- P.53) A more enduring solution for protecting the weak is to empower them. To confer rights on them. When human beings are conferred diverse rights, some rights stand in the forefront.

Many appellations are given to those more important rights. Some of the more basic have been identified now. They are classified as ‘Human Rights’.

The efforts started seriously, soon after the second World War. ‘The founders of the United Nations realized that the denial of human rights and appalling violations that had occurred in Germany and elsewhere were some of the main concerns following the second World War’. That led to the setting up of the ‘Commission of Human Rights’ (‘Human Rights for the Twenty First Century’ – P.86).

The passage of time has witnessed assignment of seriousness in the theme and systematic and periodic evaluation of performance in the field. It is no longer doing ‘lip service to human rights in high sounding language’. Doing little or no service in terms of actual decisions is not easily forgiven. That is a healthy sign.

In the process of protection of human rights it is the entirety of people that is to be involved. Members of Parliament and Judges of Courts, no doubt, play their useful part. That is not adequate. This feeling is aptly, expressed with reference to a group which would not generally bother about carping comments. Robert Blackburn states: “Constitutional reform cannot be left to politicians alone – who are essential but not sufficient”.

Freedom from torture was considered as an important aspect of human rights. The immediate background of the orgies of torture which fascist forces unleashed might have been the immediate cause of such a strong reaction. Other rights were also treated as dear and near to a refined soul. ‘Man does not live by bread alone’. He has cultural aspirations. Comforts of a clear conscience and the ecstasy of joy in giving expression to one’s views (it does not matter whether they are obscene or objectionable) were also regarded as prominent.

Exploitation of the weak arising from physical disabilities, social oppression or economic greed was also frowned upon. Human rights, therefore, recognized protection for women and insulation of the child against exposure to evils. The horizon of human rights was expanding slowly but steadily.

Modern life gave many comforts to the fortunate people. Telephone for talking to others by defeating distance, enjoying entertainment in glossy publications or in numerous channels of the electronic media and the like. They were, doubtless, luxuries initially. They have almost become necessities in later times. Interface with such facilities, whether it would be intrusion into privacy or the tapping of the telephone, was treated as unlawful, and enjoyment of uninterrupted and un-interfered experiences was treated as human rights.

Maylong Vs United Kingdom is a classic instance where the court projected the human rights under Article B, even when he had been charged with offences relating to dishonest handling of stolen goods. The march of human rights picked up speed. Earlier the aspiration was only to protect people against destruction. It soon took to other fields like the projection of universal values “which are not less significant to man than that of mere survival”.

Sometimes one may wonder whether human rights had not strayed beyond the boundary marks. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ is an old adage. “There will be many among the older generation who did suffer, birched by the strict school master. It is now a violation of human rights. The punishment is treated as a ‘degrading one’. That is clear from a decision rendered in 1978, Tyrer Vs United Kingdom.

The children, however, need not be totally complacent about total insulation from pinpricks, even when sphere thrusts have been averted. That was the view taken fairly recently in 1993. Costello-Roberts Vs United Kingdom. Three whacks on the buttocks on a seven year old boy did not measure up to the level of severity. It was held that the headmaster did not violate Article 3.

Sometimes convictions are rendered in some courts, violating Article 6. That led to a strong reaction from enlightened democracies. Now it has emerged that foreign convictions which violate Article 6 must not be enforced in convention states.

Possibly it is time to have a serious thought about certain countries having economic or material leverage, but totally flouting some of the basic rights. The conscience of the world has not yet reacted effectively, in view of apprehended economic embarrassments. It is high time to think about it with equal enthusiasm as is shown in the areas of gender discrimination or child abuse.

It is possible now to illustrate with specific factual data how such important and essential basic rights are violated with impunity by certain countries. A total deprivation of a person’s property by an arbitrary official or state, is not a lesser violation of human rights than the tapping of the telephone or the stopping of a speech. Right to property, at least in specific situations can be treated as human rights. That has been the concept in important democracies.

It has been observed that the British were “taught by Locke and Blackstone to regard property as the best guarantee of social security”. John Pemble refers to the travel of that concept to India in his book, ‘The Raj, the Indian Mutiny and the Kingdom of Outh’,1809-1859, page 145.

The courts have always been sympathetic towards property rights. Bran Gold stated in 1989 that judges are…. “likely to be more familiar with value of property rights than with social security, more sympathetic to individual acquisitiveness than to community responsibility”.

Yet, even the records of the case of the Delhi High Court would expose one of the worst violations of those human rights in an oil rich country. And that too, in spite of the judiciary of that very state, proclaiming the innocence of an Indian, who toiled in those desert lands, but had been tortured by a wily policeman, to leave the country, but without even a single Dirham from his many million savings of 18 years duration.

Curiously the Indian bureaucrat was fiddling even when an Indian citizen’s house was burning. Thanks to the vision and dynamism, the Human Rights Commission of India sensed the tragedy, and asked the Government of India to explain. It is yet to obey the direction of the Commission to furnish an explanation for the continued inaction. To make matters worse, the Government acted most perversely and in total ignorance of the existence of human rights, when ultimately and belatedly it acted.

The incident is indicative of the illiteracy on human rights even with the ‘think-thank’ in the External Affairs Ministry. It is therefore, appropriate, that an educational exercise on that behalf is undertaken now. Earnest endeavours are bound to bear luscious fruits!

Article – First published at: UAE Human Rights ( On 10 Dec, 1998

Boycott UAE – Human Rights Campaign

Investor demands serious reputational damage and damages for breaches of various rights!

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

We appreciate and support ‘Boycott UAE‘ Campaign

Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, UAE Human Rights | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Agreement between ‘INDIA-UAE’ On Juridical And Judicial Cooperation


Help us reach our goals by making a contribution to enforce the UAE Judgment(s)

The petitioner, who is a UAE torture survivor of inside the regime’s brutal prison in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and most importantly a THREE times of ‘Judgment Creditor’ from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi, and still frustrated in the course of enforcing his judgments. He is now aimed to take his case to the next level of courts, the “International Court of Justice and Arbitral Tribunals”.

We need your active support to expose the debtors who hide Judicial decisions, commit fraud and other henious acts to avoid honoring their obligations. …

Agreement between the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Done at New Delhi on the 25th October, 1999.

July 10, 2012  New Delhi








           The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the United Arab Emirates, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties;

          Being desirous of strengthening the bonds of friendship between the two countries and promoting fruitful cooperation in the judicial and legal spheres;

              Recognising the need to facilitate the widest measure of legal assistance in civil and commercial matters;

 HAVE AGREED as follows:


 Article I

 1.         The Contracting Parties shall grant each other under this Agreement the widest measure of mutual legal assistance in civil and commercial matters in accordance with their national laws.

 2.             Assistance under this Agreement shall apply in:

             a.             service of summons and other judicial documents or processes;

             b.             the taking of evidence by means of Letters of Request or commissions;

             c.             execution of decrees, settlements and arbitral awards.

 3.         This Agreement shall be without prejudice; to any rights and obligations of the Parties pursuant to other treaties or arrangements.

 4.         This Agreement shall apply to any requests for mutual legal assistance relating to any civil or commercial matter arising either prior to or after its entry into force.


 Article II

 1.             Requests for legal assistance shall be made through the Central Authorities of the Contracting Parties.

 2.          In the Republic of India the Central Authority is the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs. In the United Arab Emirates the Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice.

 3.          Unless otherwise stated all the documents in connection with the legal assistance shall be officially signed by the Court under its seal which shall be authenticated by the Central Authority of the Requesting Party.

 4.          All requests and supporting documents shall be furnished in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a translation into one of the official languages of the Requested Party.


 Article III

 1.             Summons and other judicial documents in the Contracting Parties shall be served:

              i.         in the case of India, through the courts in whose jurisdiction the

concerned persons reside;

              ii.         in the case of the United Arab Emirates, through the Ministry of


 2.          The service of summons and other judicial documents shall be effected in accordance with the procedure provided for in the laws of the Requested State, or by a particular method desired by the Requesting State, unless such a method is incompatible with the law of the Requested State.

 3.          The summons and other judicial documents served in pursuance of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been served in the territory of the Requesting State.

 4.          The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not preclude the right of the Contracting Parties to effect such service, through its diplomatic or consular representatives, of summons and other judicial documents on its nationals residing in the territory of the other Contracting Party without application of any compulsion. Service in such cases shall entail no responsibility for the State of accreditation.

 5.             Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, summons and other judicial documents may be served directly through postal channels or by delivery to an addressee who accepts it voluntarily without application of any compulsion.

 6.          Any claim about the addressee being a national of the State in whose jurisdiction the service is to be effected shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State.

 Article IV

              The request for the service of summons and other ;judicial documents shall furnish all particulars concerning the name and title, place of residence or ;business of the addressee and a list of documents and papers to be served on that person. Where any special mode of service is desired, this should also be indicated in the request.

 Article V

 1.          A request for the service of summons and other judicial documents, which is in conformity with the provisions of this Agreement, may not be refused, unless the Requested Party considers that compliance with the request would infringe its sovereignty, security or public policy.

 2.             Service may not be refused on the ;ground that the request does not show sufficient legal grounds supporting the merits of the case.

 3.          Whenever the service is not effected, the Requested Party ;shall forthwith notify the Requesting Party of the reasons therefore.

 Article VI

 1.          The competent authority in the State requested shall serve the said documents and papers in accordance with the laws and rules applicable in this regard. No fees and costs may be levied for effecting such service.

 2.             Service may be effected in a special mode or manner specified by the Requesting Party, provided that it does not contravene the laws of the Requested State and further subject to the payment of costs of such special mode of service.

 Article VII

 1.          The powers of the competent authority in the Requested Party shall be limited to the delivery of the judicial documents and papers to the addressee.

 2.             Delivery shall be proved either by the signature of the addressee on the copy of the judicial document or paper, or by a certificate issued by the competent authority stating the name of the addressee, the date and mode of delivery, and where such delivery could not be effected, the reasons for such non-delivery.

 3.          a copy of the judicial documents or paper signed by the addressee or a certificate proving delivery shall be sent to the requesting authority through the Central Authority.


 Article VIII

 1.          The judicial authorities of a Contracting Party may in accordance with the provisions of the law of that Party, request for the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters by means of Letters of Request addressed to the competent judicial authorities of the other Party.

2.          For the purpose of this Agreement, taking of evidence shall be deemed to cover:

            a.             the taking of the statements, on oath or otherwise, of a witness;

            b.             the submission of oath to a witness, with regard to any legal

   proceedings; and

              c.            the production, identification or examination of documents, records,

  samples relevant to the evidence requested and submitted by the person whose    evidence is taken under sub-paras (a) & (b) above.

 3.          A Letter of Request shall specify:

              a.             the judicial or other competent authority requesting the evidence;

              b.             the nature of the proceedings for which the evidence is required and all

    necessary information related thereto;

              c.             the names and addresses of the parties to the proceedings;

              d.             the evidence to be obtained; and

              e.             the names and addresses of the persons to be examined.

 4.          Where deemed necessary, the Letters of Request shall be accompanied by a list of interrogatories to be put to the witnesses or other persons involved or a statement of the subject matter about which they are to be examined and the documents relevant to such evidence or statement.

 5.          The Letters of Request shall indicate whether the evidence required is to be taken on oath or affirmation.

 Article IX

              The judicial proceedings performed by way of a Commission in pursuance of the provisions of this Agreement, shall have the same legal effect as if it  is performed by a competent authority in the Requesting State.

 Article X

 1.          The competent authorities of the Requested Party shall execute the Letters of Request in accordance with the provisions of its own laws and obtain the evidence required by applying the same methods and procedures as are permissible under its laws, including the same appropriate methods of compulsion.

 2.          The Requested Party shall follow any special method or procedure which has been expressly specified by the Letter of Request insofar as it is not incompatible with its laws and practices.

 3.          The Letters of Request shall be executed as expeditiously as possible.

 4.          The Requesting Party shall, if it so desires, be informed of the time when, and the place where, the proceedings will take place, in order that the parties concerned, and their representative, if any, may be present. This information shall be sent directly to the parties or their representatives when the Requesting Party so request.

 5.          When the Letter of Request has been executed, the necessary documents establishing its execution shall be sent to the Requesting Party.

 6.          In every instance where the Letter of Request is not executed in whole or in part, the Requesting Party shall be informed immediately and advised of the reasons.

 Article XI

              The execution of a Letter of Request may be refused only to the extent that;

              a.             The execution of the letter does not fall within the functions of the

    judiciary; or

              b.             the Requested State considers that its sovereignty or security would be

    prejudiced by its execution.

 2.             Execution may not be refused solely on the ground that under its internal law the Requested Party claims exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or that its internal law would not admit a right of action on it.

 Article XII

            The execution of Letters of Request and the taking of evidence by the Requested Party shall not give rise to any reimbursement of charges, expenses or costs, under whatever description by the Requesting Party. However, the Requested Party shall have the right to seek reimbursement of:

              a.         any expenses and charges paid to the ;witnesses, experts or


              b.         any costs incurred to secure the attendance of witnesses who have not

appeared voluntarily; and

              c.          any costs and expenses occasioned by the use of a special procedure on


 Article XIII

              A diplomatic officer or Consular Agent of either Contracting Party may, in the territory of the other Party, take the evidence, without compulsion of nationals of the Party which he represents, in aid of judicial proceedings commenced in the courts of the Contracting Party which he; represents.

 Article XIV

              A person duly appointed as a Commissioner by the courts of either Contracting Party may, without compulsion, take evidence in the territory of the other Contracting Party, in accordance with the laws of that Party.

 Article XV

 1.          Each of the Contracting Parties shall, in accordance with its laws, recognise and/or execute decrees passed by the Courts of the other Contracting Party in civil, commercial and personal matters and by criminal courts in civil matters.

 2.          The term ‘Decree’ as used in this Agreement, whatever its designation, means any decision rendered in judicial proceedings by a competent court of the Contracting States.

 3.          This Agreement shall not apply to interim or provisional ;measures, except matters relating to taxation and allowances.

 Article XVI

              In disputes involving the question of capacity or status of a person, the courts of the State of which that person is a national at the time of institution of the suit shall be competent in those matters.

 Article XVII

              The courts of the State where immovable property is situated shall be competent to determine the rights connected with such property.

 Article XVIII

              In matters other than capacity or status of a person or immovable property, the courts of a Contracting Party shall have jurisdiction in the following cases:

              a.         If the defendant has his domicile or residence in the territory of that

State at the time of institution of the suit

              b.         or the defendant has at the time of institution of the suit, a place or a branch of                           commercial or industrial nature or works for gain in the territory of that state, and                           the suit relates to such activity

              c.          or by an express or implied agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant,                            the contractual obligations giving rise to the litigation are or have to be                            performed in the territory of that State

              e.           or the defendant expressly or impliedly submitted to the jurisdiction of the                             courts of that State, and the law of that State allows such submission

              f.            or any application for provisional measures, if the courts of such State are                             deemed competent to hear the principal dispute, by virtue of; the provisions of                             this Agreement.

Article XIX

              Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the courts of the State requested to recognise or execute a decree shall, when examining ;the ;grounds of jurisdiction exercised by the Courts of the other contracting State, be bound by the facts stated in that decree and on which jurisdiction is based, unless the said decree had been passed in absentia.

 Article XX

              A decree shall not be recognised or executed in the following cases:

              a.             if it is not conclusive and executable;

              b.            or it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

              c.             or it has not been given on ;the merits of the cases;

              d.            or it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an  incorrect view                              of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of the Requested Party in                              cases in which such law is applicable.

             e.            or the proceedings in which the judgement was obtained are opposed to natural                              justice;            

              f.             or it has been obtained by fraud;

              g.           or it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force, or is  contrary to                             the constitutional rules or the principles of public order  in the Requested State;

              h.           or it contravenes the rules concerning the legal representation or persons                              suffering from lack of capacity in the Requested State;

              i.            or it is passed in absentia and the defaulting party was not duly  summoned in                             accordance with the rules applicable in his country;

              j.             or the dispute in which the decree was passed is pending in a suit before one of                              the courts in the Requested State, between the same parties and involving the                              same cause of action, and that suit was raised before one of the courts of the                              latter State, at a date prior to the raising of that dispute in the court of the State                              which passed the decree, and provided that the court before which the suit was                              raised, is competent to here and decide upon it.

 Article XXI

              Procedures relating to recognition or execution of a decree shall be subject to the laws of the Requested State.

 Article XXII

 1.          The competent judicial authority in the State requested to recognise or execute a decree shall, without reviewing the merits of the case, confine itself to ascertaining the compliance of the decree with the conditions provided for in this Agreement.

 2.          The competent judicial authority in the Requested State shall, when necessary, in executing the decree, take the necessary action to notify the decree in the same manner as it would have done had it been passed in its own territory.

 3.          The order for execution may be made for the whole or part of the decree, if the execution of such part of the decree is serverable.

 Article XXIII

              The Central Authority of the Contracting Party requesting recognition or execution of a decree in the other Contracting Party, shall submit the following:

              a.             an official copy of the decree.

              b.             a certificate showing that the decree is final and executable, unless that is                               provided for in the decree itself.

              c.             in case of a decree in absentia, an authenticated copy of the summons  or any                               other document showing that the defendant was duly summoned.

              d.            if the request is only for execution of a decree, an official copy in properly                               executable form.

 Article XXIV

 1.          The settlement of a claim which is made and filed before a judicial authority of either Contracting Party competent to consider the claim according to its national law shall be recognised and enforced in the territory of the other Contracting Party, after ascertaining that it is executable in the State in which it was concluded, and that it does not contain any provisions contravening the constitutional rules or public policy of the Requested State.

             2.          The party requesting recognition or execution of a settlement must submit an                            official copy and a certificate from the judicial authority stating the extent, if any,                            to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted.


 Article XXV

 1.             Without prejudice to the provisions of Article XXIV and XXVI of this agreement, arbitral awards given in the territory of either Party shall be recognised and enforced in the other Party provided that:

 a.             the award of arbitrators is based on a written agreement of the parties to the dispute to submit to arbitrators for determination of any specific or future dispute arising out of legal relations.

 b.             the award is made on matters arbitrable  according to the law of  the State requested to recognise its enforcement unless it is contrary to the public policy of the Requested State.

 2.          The party requesting the recognition and enforcement of an award, shall produce a copy of the award accompanied by a certificate of the competent judicial authority in the Requesting State to the effect that the award is executable.

 3.          A certified copy of the Agreement between the disputant Parties empowering the arbitrators to decide the dispute shall also be produced.


 Article XXVI

              This Agreement is subject to ratification and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon as possible. It shall come into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification.

              Either of the Contracting Parties may terminate this Agreement by giving six months notice thereof through diplomatic channels. Upon the expiry of such notice, the Agreement shall cease to have any force or effect.

              In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective governments, have signed this Agreement.

              Done at New Delhi on the 25th October, 1999 in two originals each in Hindi, Arabic and English languages, each text being equally authentic.  However, in case of difference, the English text shall prevail.


THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA                                    THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Download the Agreement INDIA-UAE 1999 (PDF 105KB)

Principal Sources:


Posted in Agreement INDIA-UAE 1999 | Tagged , | Leave a comment