The Independent Ombudsman Office followed up on what was published about by a number of British MPs of the House of Commons and Lords calling for the immediate release of an inmate, and the allegations contained in this call regarding the forced confession of the aforementioned inmate and that he was also subjected to what they called "brutal torture".
In this context, and in the interest of the Independent Ombudsman Office to clarify the truth of the aforementioned allegations as it may affect the public’s confidence where it does not reflect the actual facts, the Independent Ombudsman Office would affirm the following:
First: The aforementioned inmate (F.A.H.) neither he nor his family had previously filed any complaint to the Independent Ombudsman Office regarding allegations related to coercion or ill-treatment.
Second: The Independent Ombudsman Office had received two assistance requests regarding the aforementioned inmate as follows:
A request submitted by the inmate’s mother on 24 April 2021, to communicate with him, the Independent Ombudsman Office contacted the administration of the Reform and Rehabilitation Center to settle this request, the inmate’s mother confirmed that she received two phone calls from him on April 27 and 28 2021.
The second request was also submitted by his mother on April 29, 2021, regarding visual communication and receiving a meal, and the administration of the Reform and Rehabilitation Center was contacted by the Independent Ombudsman Office to settle the request just as the usual procedures followed in such cases.
By reviewing the Special Investigation Unit and within the framework of working relations and joint coordination in the implementation of the memorandum of understanding signed between the Independent Ombudsman Office and the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) in July 2013, the Independent Ombudsman Office contacted the SIU to inquire about the aforementioned inmate, the SIU stated that he was investigated by the Public Prosecution on 18 November 2019, and he did not allege any mistreatment or torture, also it was found that there were no apparent injuries upon the examination, as he denied suffering from any hidden injuries.
As well as, applying the forensic medical examination on him after his investigation in the public prosecution, and it was found that there are no injuries.
On the other hand, his father submitted a complaint to the SIU on 6 February 2020, he stated that his son informed him during their meeting at the Dry Dock Detention Centre about being tortured and threatened, also being detained in solitary confinement.
The complainant was asked by the SIU on 19 February 2020 about what was mentioned in his father’s complaint, where he claimed that he was tortured and mistreated by the police after his arrest on 7 November 2019, but he did not accuse a specific person or provide a known description regarding all of the above. Moreover, upon his examination in the SIU, no apparent or hidden injuries were found.
The inmate was also examined by the SIU's psychiatrist upon his request, the doctor concluded his report that the inmate did not suffer from any mental illnesses or symptoms.
The SIU carried on its investigations by requesting the judicial police investigations, which did not find any information or evidence regarding the complainant's claim.
The SIU investigated members of the public security forces who dealt with the complainant where they denied the raised allegations.
The Special Investigation Unit concluded the investigation and based on the fact that the complainant's statements were not supported by any other evidence.
In conclusion, the Independent Ombudsman Office did not prove to it, either directly or through the statement of the Special Investigation Unit, the validity of the allegations made by some members of the British Parliament regarding the inmate referred to in those allegations.
At a time when the Independent Ombudsman Office reiterates its welcoming to receive complaints and grievances related to the status of any inmate, from him, his family, or his legal representative, and the need to expedite the submission of these grievances and the allegations they contain in an appropriate time so that specific results can be reached at appropriate times as well, which ensures efficiency, speed of delivery, and transparency.